From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com (mail-lb0-f171.google.com [209.85.217.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BAD221F0D1; Wed, 16 May 2012 02:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbom4 with SMTP id m4so760645lbo.16 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 02:02:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=0tKuaPYX9ac+nCHgbWeASUy1x4xJO9W9SywZa0HQ+Pw=; b=j9P2O+g1BrYboGpXuphfireli8jJ9nRy8ECyJKUxeaafU542z7kgYMuS1+v22z94lO HKqnn5pxOodGnhLGKhlTDhjxQrPtRqcF25TIAWSF08AWukOmlHau7DmXRb6EEozNhEhT Ro1I8fiey1lJam/dYUm8nDItPqGa2aI7pTfKB5LeTLtdwRsLaFlzp17qvQRUjfn6NR8c clOQo8kRlI0vN0vQRfxo0wYBrDnrsY3vlUZUO4fy5aRVYoqK/ppGqA5dYhhmdVGUuV7U AIcBFFbYk5t4Ph6JgG1dm+B3t5axlFOXu5rW5eoBjBZNj9DwyhD7xn9ndxNapee4u0jM KrDA== Received: by 10.152.148.199 with SMTP id tu7mr2073569lab.43.1337158932950; Wed, 16 May 2012 02:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [176.93.81.139] (176-93-81-139.bb.dnainternet.fi. [176.93.81.139]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o2sm2699935lbd.7.2012.05.16.02.02.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 16 May 2012 02:02:12 -0700 (PDT) References: <4FA9FDC0.9010600@superduper.net> <1337148560.8512.1123.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <4FB3519D.3020809@gmail.com> <1337154417.8512.1147.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1337156271.8512.1163.camel@edumazet-glaptop> In-Reply-To: <1337156271.8512.1163.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8C148) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8C148) From: Jonathan Morton Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 12:02:37 +0300 To: Eric Dumazet Cc: "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Codel] [Bloat] Exploring the potential of codel, fq_codel, and qfq X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:02:16 -0000 With FQ, I don't see what that would buy you. The key to knowledge is not to rely on others to teach you it. On 16 May 2012, at 11:17, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 09:47 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> On TCP_RR pure workload, you have one packet in flight per flow. >> >> ECN adds nothing in this case, only that no 'drops' occurs at all. >> >> It might be good to change fq_codel to perform ECN mark only if flow >> queue has more packets. >> >> If not, plain drop. > > And for codel, if all packets are ECN enabled, there is no 'drop' on a > pure TCP_RR workload, you endup codel downgraded to pfifo > > An idea would be following : > > If sojourn_time is above a new limit (say ecn_threshold), drop packet no > matter it is ECN capable or not. > > This still gives incentive to ECN flows, but allow drops in case all > flows are ECN. > > target = 5ms ; > ecn_threshold = target * 2; > interval = 100ms; > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat