From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0A873B25E; Sun, 15 May 2016 19:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id k142so245529152oib.1; Sun, 15 May 2016 16:27:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=3RqFdeYzk6lN6rYsS4FpO9uvwj9o0sLN/qUW+vwnMMQ=; b=WJtrNZgSszJwg9e07ocT8AHfRW4QSgn0g+8BgsoqgCS275WfioSTpGQZMyeTSlwKdZ 7/Zh4n/2nDulbD9u+f9SZ9gQKW1elHxdJIHcWueN+rVUyCkQ2SxAtNNGo8Krn8f2MPnG qKylpSzzYfIub/yjiZ+jb/0189KG3LZTBBOMsZCjCEWf2m4oVi5KbR06wAA9aatv3M1W SC84djETz7tszxGqqXYc9UxrOkVms5D1NHqx/6TI2kLiLLZRTWC7o/itdWF92JD6gwDf 525iFlVkigOfC4/Yof6+BN/cLwwwD3HTQ7vIvxvcI0ubV2ZzQhLZ+8sjNkT3eAT1UT0+ D5dA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=3RqFdeYzk6lN6rYsS4FpO9uvwj9o0sLN/qUW+vwnMMQ=; b=TJQ25gzse8+BY4hi9F1KhxWw3+WAoqODzGJ9c3iMcWfCkOUiLlH8FJBMhvVnmN4gyB wMPd9IgnC+malTQedi6Dp5RLoGnYNEO8Jy9p94G+Pdbi9L0EoyZESzx/yjTOhG4TkA8N 7Be4gCZnw9IMl5PMfYgLrnD/1BR4DRjk6kiCBTbLHhaUeq7nYrjwlowAC0XPgEr8v0Dh 1XdicbmBjoQ060Bn4Q8cb7lEYJm0o6Bcep+go3a0A057An2DrK4mC4RL6tt3N81T8IuO ZX0/chuwqxzrIAdyVMlhJS1U+mEv35qjITxjOweI3P6c3oB+FsmErKYvAGI0JqVfh68w HhqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FX949FrP/o8SBst2408ROcgNilyxM3f9j0UOhfbHDbPyJLnbxgkZQi0plQ+7oPOEX97wZ/2DDcZAqFr0g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.157.9.100 with SMTP id 91mr14266096otp.142.1463354829187; Sun, 15 May 2016 16:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.252.9 with HTTP; Sun, 15 May 2016 16:27:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1463353661.18194.50.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> References: <1462125592.5535.194.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <865DA393-262D-40B6-A9D3-1B978CD5F6C6@gmail.com> <1462128385.5535.200.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <1462136140.5535.219.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <1462201620.5535.250.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <1462205669.5535.254.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <1462464776.13075.18.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <1462476207.13075.20.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> <20160506114243.4eb4f95e@redhat.com> <20160506144740.210901f5@redhat.com> <1463353661.18194.50.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 02:27:09 +0300 Message-ID: From: Roman Yeryomin To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Dave Taht , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Felix Fietkau , Jonathan Morton , "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , ath10k , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , OpenWrt Development List , Michal Kazior Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Codel] OpenWRT wrong adjustment of fq_codel defaults (Was: fq_codel_drop vs a udp flood) X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 23:27:09 -0000 On 16 May 2016 at 02:07, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2016-05-16 at 01:34 +0300, Roman Yeryomin wrote: > >> qdisc fq_codel 8003: parent :3 limit 1024p flows 16 quantum 1514 >> target 80.0ms ce_threshold 32us interval 100.0ms ecn >> Sent 1601271168 bytes 1057706 pkt (dropped 1422304, overlimits 0 requeues 17) >> backlog 1541252b 1018p requeues 17 >> maxpacket 1514 drop_overlimit 1422304 new_flow_count 35 ecn_mark 0 >> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 1 > > Why do you have ce_threshold set ? You really should not (even if it > does not matter for the kind of traffic you have at this moment) No idea, it was there always. How do I unset it? Setting it to 0 doesn't help. > If your expected link speed is around 1Gbps, or 80,000 packets per > second, then you have to understand that 1024 packets limit is about 12 > ms at most. > > Even if the queue is full, max sojourn time of a packet would be 12 ms. > > I really do not see how 'target 80 ms' could be hit. Well, as I said, I've tried different options. Neither target 20ms (as Dave proposed) not 12ms save the situation. > You basically have FQ, with no Codel effect, but with the associated > cost of Codel (having to take timestamps) > > >