Those 'efficiency' threads in Intel 12th gen should probably be addressed as well. You can't turn them off in BIOS. On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:48 AM Robert Chacón via LibreQoS < libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Awesome work on this! > I suspect there should be a slight performance bump once Hyperthreading is > disabled and efficient power management is off. > Hyperthreading/SMT always messes with HTB performance when I leave it on. > Thank you for mentioning that - I now went ahead and added instructions on > disabling hyperthreading on the Wiki for new users. > Super promising results! > Interested to see what throughput is with xdp-cpumap-tc vs cpumap-pping. > So far in your VM setup it seems to be doing very well. > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:06 AM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS < > libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> Also, I forgot to mention that I *think* the current version has removed >> the requirement that the inbound >> and outbound classifiers be placed on the same CPU. I know interduo was >> particularly keen on packing >> upload into fewer cores. I'll add that to my list of things to test. >> >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:01 AM Herbert Wolverson >> wrote: >> >>> I'll definitely take a look - that does look interesting. I don't have >>> X11 on any of my test VMs, but >>> it looks like it can work without the GUI. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:58 AM Dave Taht wrote: >>> >>>> could I coax you to adopt flent? >>>> >>>> apt-get install flent netperf irtt fping >>>> >>>> You sometimes have to compile netperf yourself with --enable-demo on >>>> some systems. >>>> There are a bunch of python libs neede for the gui, but only on the >>>> client. >>>> >>>> Then you can run a really gnarly test series and plot the results over >>>> time. >>>> >>>> flent --socket-stats --step-size=.05 -t 'the-test-conditions' -H >>>> the_server_name rrul # 110 other tests >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 6:44 AM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hey, >>>> > >>>> > Testing the current version ( >>>> https://github.com/thebracket/cpumap-pping-hackjob ), it's doing >>>> better than I hoped. This build has shared (not per-cpu) maps, and a >>>> userspace daemon (xdp_pping) to extract and reset stats. >>>> > >>>> > My testing environment has grown a bit: >>>> > * ShaperVM - running Ubuntu Server and LibreQoS, with the new >>>> cpumap-pping-hackjob version of xdp-cpumap. >>>> > * ExtTest - running Ubuntu Server, set as 10.64.1.1. Hosts an iperf >>>> server. >>>> > * ClientInt1 - running Ubuntu Server (minimal), set as 10.64.1.2. >>>> Hosts iperf client. >>>> > * ClientInt2 - running Ubuntu Server (minimal), set as 10.64.1.3. >>>> Hosts iperf client. >>>> > >>>> > ClientInt1, ClientInt2 and one interface (LAN facing) of ShaperVM are >>>> on a virtual switch. >>>> > ExtTest and the other interface (WAN facing) of ShaperVM are on a >>>> different virtual switch. >>>> > >>>> > These are all on a host machine running Windows 11, a core i7 12th >>>> gen, 32 Gb RAM and fast SSD setup. >>>> > >>>> > TEST 1: DUAL STREAMS, LOW THROUGHPUT >>>> > >>>> > For this test, LibreQoS is configured: >>>> > * Two APs, each with 5gbit/s max. >>>> > * 100.64.1.2 and 100.64.1.3 setup as CPEs, each limited to about >>>> 100mbit/s. They map to 1:5 and 2:5 respectively (separate CPUs). >>>> > * Set to use Cake >>>> > >>>> > On each client, roughly simultaneously run: iperf -c 100.64.1.1 -t >>>> 500 (for a long run). Running xdp_pping yields correct results: >>>> > >>>> > [ >>>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 4, "min" : 3, "max" : 5, "samples" : 11}, >>>> > {"tc":"2:5", "avg" : 4, "min" : 3, "max" : 5, "samples" : 11}, >>>> > {}] >>>> > >>>> > Or when I waited a while to gather/reset: >>>> > >>>> > [ >>>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 4, "min" : 3, "max" : 6, "samples" : 60}, >>>> > {"tc":"2:5", "avg" : 4, "min" : 3, "max" : 5, "samples" : 60}, >>>> > {}] >>>> > >>>> > The ShaperVM shows no errors, just periodic logging that it is >>>> recording data. CPU is about 2-3% on two CPUs, zero on the others (as >>>> expected). >>>> > >>>> > After 500 seconds of continual iperfing, each client reported a >>>> throughput of 104 Mbit/sec and 6.06 GBytes of data transmitted. >>>> > >>>> > So for smaller streams, I'd call this a success. >>>> > >>>> > TEST 2: DUAL STREAMS, HIGH THROUGHPUT >>>> > >>>> > For this test, LibreQoS is configured: >>>> > * Two APs, each with 5gb/s max. >>>> > * 100.64.1.2 and 100.64.1.3 setup as CPEs, each limited to 5Gbit/s! >>>> Mapped to 1:5 and 2:5 respectively (separate CPUs). >>>> > >>>> > Run iperfc -c 100.64.1.1 -t 500 on each client at the same time. >>>> > >>>> > xdp_pping shows results, too: >>>> > >>>> > [ >>>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 4, "min" : 1, "max" : 7, "samples" : 58}, >>>> > {"tc":"2:5", "avg" : 7, "min" : 3, "max" : 11, "samples" : 58}, >>>> > {}] >>>> > >>>> > [ >>>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 5, "min" : 4, "max" : 8, "samples" : 13}, >>>> > {"tc":"2:5", "avg" : 8, "min" : 7, "max" : 10, "samples" : 13}, >>>> > {}] >>>> > >>>> > The ShaperVM shows two CPUs pegging between 70 and 90 percent. >>>> > >>>> > After 500 seconds of continual iperfing, each client reported a >>>> throughput of 2.72 Gbits/sec (158 GBytes) and 3.89 Gbits/sec and 226 GBytes. >>>> > >>>> > Maxing out HyperV like this is inducing a bit of latency (which is to >>>> be expected), but it's not bad. I also forgot to disable hyperthreading, >>>> and looking at the host performance it is sometimes running the second >>>> virtual CPU on an underpowered "fake" CPU. >>>> > >>>> > So for two large streams, I think we're doing pretty well also! >>>> > >>>> > TEST 3: DUAL STREAMS, SINGLE CPU >>>> > >>>> > This test is designed to try and blow things up. It's the same as >>>> test 2, but both CPEs are set to the same CPU (1), using TC handles 1:5 and >>>> 1:6. >>>> > >>>> > ShaperVM CPU1 maxed out in the high 90s, the other CPUs were idle. >>>> The pping stats start to show a bit of degradation in performance for >>>> pounding it so hard: >>>> > >>>> > [ >>>> > {"tc":"1:6", "avg" : 10, "min" : 9, "max" : 19, "samples" : 24}, >>>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 10, "min" : 8, "max" : 18, "samples" : 24}, >>>> > {}] >>>> > >>>> > For whatever reason, it smoothed out over time: >>>> > >>>> > [ >>>> > {"tc":"1:6", "avg" : 10, "min" : 9, "max" : 12, "samples" : 50}, >>>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 10, "min" : 8, "max" : 13, "samples" : 50}, >>>> > {}] >>>> > >>>> > Surprisingly (to me), I didn't encounter errors. Each client received >>>> 2.22 Gbit/s performance, over 129 Gbytes of data. >>>> > >>>> > TEST 4: DUAL STREAMS, 50 SUB-STREAMS >>>> > >>>> > This test is also designed to break things. Same as test 3, but using >>>> iperf -c 100.64.1.1 -P 50 -t 120 - 50 substreams, to try and really tax the >>>> flow tracking. (Shorter time window because I really wanted to go and find >>>> coffee) >>>> > >>>> > ShaperVM CPU sat at around 80-97%, tending towards 97%. pping results >>>> show that this torture test is worsening performance, and there's always >>>> lots of samples in the buffer: >>>> > >>>> > [ >>>> > {"tc":"1:6", "avg" : 23, "min" : 19, "max" : 27, "samples" : 49}, >>>> > {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 24, "min" : 19, "max" : 27, "samples" : 49}, >>>> > {}] >>>> > >>>> > This test also ran better than I expected. You can definitely see >>>> some latency creeping in as I make the system work hard. Each VM showed >>>> around 2.4 Gbit/s in total performance at the end of the iperf session. >>>> There's definitely some latency creeping in, which is expected - but I'm >>>> not sure I expected quite that much. >>>> > >>>> > WHAT'S NEXT & CONCLUSION >>>> > >>>> > I noticed that I forgot to turn off efficient power management on my >>>> VMs and host, and left Hyperthreading on by mistake. So that hurts overall >>>> performance. >>>> > >>>> > The base system seems to be working pretty solidly, at least for >>>> small tests.Next up, I'll be removing extraneous debug reporting code, >>>> removing some code paths that don't do anything but report, and looking for >>>> any small optimization opportunities. I'll then re-run these tests. Once >>>> that's done, I hope to find a maintenance window on my WISP and try it with >>>> actual traffic. >>>> > >>>> > I also need to re-run these tests without the pping system to provide >>>> some before/after analysis. >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:01 PM Herbert Wolverson < >>>> herberticus@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> It's probably not entirely thread-safe right now (ran into some >>>> issues reading per_cpu maps back from userspace; hopefully, I'll get that >>>> figured out) - but the commits I just pushed have it basically working on >>>> single-stream testing. :-) >>>> >> >>>> >> Setup cpumap as usual, and periodically run xdp-pping. This gives >>>> you per-connection RTT information in JSON: >>>> >> >>>> >> [ >>>> >> {"tc":"1:5", "avg" : 5, "min" : 5, "max" : 5, "samples" : 1}, >>>> >> {}] >>>> >> >>>> >> (With the extra {} because I'm not tracking the tail and haven't >>>> done comma removal). The tool also empties the various maps used to gather >>>> data, acting as a "reset" point. There's a max of 60 samples per queue, in >>>> a ringbuffer setup (so newest will start to overwrite the oldest). >>>> >> >>>> >> I'll start trying to test on a larger scale now. >>>> >> >>>> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 3:34 PM Robert Chacón < >>>> robert.chacon@jackrabbitwireless.com> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Hey Herbert, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Fantastic work! Super exciting to see this coming together, >>>> especially so quickly. >>>> >>> I'll test it soon. >>>> >>> I understand and agree with your decision to omit certain features >>>> (ICMP tracking,DNS tracking, etc) to optimize performance for our use case. >>>> Like you said, in order to merge the functionality without a performance >>>> hit, merging them is sort of the only way right now. Otherwise there would >>>> be a lot of redundancy and lost throughput for an ISP's use. Though >>>> hopefully long term there will be a way to keep all projects working >>>> independently but interoperably with a plugin system of some kind. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> By the way, I'm making some headway on LibreQoS v1.3. Focusing on >>>> optimizations for high sub counts (8000+ subs) as well as stateful changes >>>> to the queue structure. >>>> >>> I'm working to set up a physical lab to test high throughput and >>>> high client count scenarios. >>>> >>> When testing beyond ~32,000 filters we get "no space left on >>>> device" from xdp-cpumap-tc, which I think relates to the bpf map size >>>> limitation you mentioned. Maybe in the coming months we can take a look at >>>> that. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Anyway great work on the cpumap-pping program! Excited to see more >>>> on this. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Thanks, >>>> >>> Robert >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 12:45 PM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS < >>>> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hey, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My current (unfinished) progress on this is now available here: >>>> https://github.com/thebracket/cpumap-pping-hackjob >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I mean it about the warnings, this isn't at all stable, debugged - >>>> and can't promise that it won't unleash the nasal demons >>>> >>>> (to use a popular C++ phrase). The name is descriptive! ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With that said, I'm pretty happy so far: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * It runs only on the classifier - which xdp-cpumap-tc has nicely >>>> shunted onto a dedicated CPU. It has to run on both >>>> >>>> the inbound and outbound classifiers, since otherwise it would >>>> only see half the conversation. >>>> >>>> * It does assume that your ingress and egress CPUs are mapped to >>>> the same interface; I do that anyway in BracketQoS. Not doing >>>> >>>> that opens up a potential world of pain, since writes to the >>>> shared maps would require a locking scheme. Too much locking, and you lose >>>> all of the benefit of using multiple CPUs to begin with. >>>> >>>> * It is pretty wasteful of RAM, but most of the shaper systems >>>> I've worked with have lots of it. >>>> >>>> * I've been gradually removing features that I don't want for >>>> BracketQoS. A hypothetical future "useful to everyone" version wouldn't do >>>> that. >>>> >>>> * Rate limiting is working, but I removed the requirement for a >>>> shared configuration provided from userland - so right now it's always set >>>> to report at 1 second intervals per stream. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My testbed is currently 3 Hyper-V VMs - a simple "client" and >>>> "world", and a "shaper" VM in between running a slightly hacked-up LibreQoS. >>>> >>>> iperf from "client" to "world" (with Libre set to allow 10gbit/s >>>> max, via a cake/HTB queue setup) is around 5 gbit/s at present, on my >>>> >>>> test PC (the host is a core i7, 12th gen, 12 cores - 64gb RAM and >>>> fast SSDs) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Output currently consists of debug messages reading: >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 515.399222: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Flow open event >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 515.399239: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 374696 >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 515.399466: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Flow open event >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 515.399475: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 247069 >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 516.405151: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 5217155 >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 517.405248: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 4515394 >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 518.406117: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 4481289 >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 519.406255: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 4255268 >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 520.407864: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 5249493 >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 521.406664: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 3795993 >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 522.407469: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 3949519 >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 523.408126: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 4365335 >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 524.408929: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 4154910 >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 525.410048: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send performance event (5,1), 4405582 >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 525.434080: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send flow event >>>> >>>> cpumap/0/map:4-1371 [000] D..2. 525.482714: >>>> bpf_trace_printk: (tc) Send flow event >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The times haven't been tweaked yet. The (5,1) is tc handle >>>> major/minor, allocated by the xdp-cpumap parent. >>>> >>>> I get pretty low latency between VMs; I'll set up a test with some >>>> real-world data very soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I plan to keep hacking away, but feel free to take a peek. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Herbert >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 10:14 AM Simon Sundberg < >>>> Simon.Sundberg@kau.se> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi, thanks for adding me to the conversation. Just a couple of >>>> quick >>>> >>>>> notes. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 2022-10-17 at 16:13 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >>>> >>>>> > [ Adding Simon to Cc ] >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS >>>> writes: >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > > Hey, >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> > > I've had some pretty good success with merging xdp-pping ( >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/blob/master/pping/pping.h ) >>>> >>>>> > > into xdp-cpumap-tc ( >>>> https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-cpumap-tc ). >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> > > I ported over most of the xdp-pping code, and then changed >>>> the entry point >>>> >>>>> > > and packet parsing code to make use of the work already done >>>> in >>>> >>>>> > > xdp-cpumap-tc (it's already parsed a big chunk of the packet, >>>> no need to do >>>> >>>>> > > it twice). Then I switched the maps to per-cpu maps, and had >>>> to pin them - >>>> >>>>> > > otherwise the two tc instances don't properly share data. >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I guess the xdp-cpumap-tc ensures that the same flow is processed >>>> on >>>> >>>>> the same CPU core at both ingress or egress. Otherwise, if a flow >>>> may >>>> >>>>> be processed by different cores on ingress and egress the per-CPU >>>> maps >>>> >>>>> will not really work reliably as each core will have a different >>>> view >>>> >>>>> on the state of the flow, if there's been a previous packet with a >>>> >>>>> certain TSval from that flow etc. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Furthermore, if a flow is always processed on the same core (on >>>> both >>>> >>>>> ingress and egress) I think per-CPU maps may be a bit wasteful on >>>> >>>>> memory. From my understanding the keys for per-CPU maps are still >>>> >>>>> shared across all CPUs, it's just that each CPU gets its own >>>> value. So >>>> >>>>> all CPUs will then have their own data for each flow, but it's >>>> only the >>>> >>>>> CPU processing the flow that will have any relevant data for the >>>> flow >>>> >>>>> while the remaining CPUs will just have an empty state for that >>>> flow. >>>> >>>>> Under the same assumption that packets within the same flow are >>>> always >>>> >>>>> processed on the same core there should generally not be any >>>> >>>>> concurrency issues with having a global (non-per-CPU) either as >>>> packets >>>> >>>>> from the same flow cannot be processed concurrently then (and >>>> thus no >>>> >>>>> concurrent access to the same value in the map). I am however >>>> still >>>> >>>>> very unclear on if there's any considerable performance impact >>>> between >>>> >>>>> global and per-CPU map versions if the same key is not accessed >>>> >>>>> concurrently. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> > > Right now, output >>>> >>>>> > > is just stubbed - I've still got to port the perfmap output >>>> code. Instead, >>>> >>>>> > > I'm dumping a bunch of extra data to the kernel debug pipe, >>>> so I can see >>>> >>>>> > > roughly what the output would look like. >>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >>>>> > > With debug enabled and just logging I'm now getting about 4.9 >>>> Gbits/sec on >>>> >>>>> > > single-stream iperf between two VMs (with a shaper VM in the >>>> middle). :-) >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > Just FYI, that "just logging" is probably the biggest source of >>>> >>>>> > overhead, then. What Simon found was that sending the data from >>>> kernel >>>> >>>>> > to userspace is one of the most expensive bits of epping, at >>>> least when >>>> >>>>> > the number of data points goes up (which is does as additional >>>> flows are >>>> >>>>> > added). >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Yhea, reporting individual RTTs when there's lots of them (you >>>> may get >>>> >>>>> upwards of 1000 RTTs/s per flow) is not only problematic in terms >>>> of >>>> >>>>> direct overhead from the tool itself, but also becomes demanding >>>> for >>>> >>>>> whatever you use all those RTT samples for (i.e. need to log, >>>> parse, >>>> >>>>> analyze etc. a very large amount of RTTs). One way to deal with >>>> that is >>>> >>>>> of course to just apply some sort of sampling (the >>>> -r/--rate-limit and >>>> >>>>> -R/--rtt-rate >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > > So my question: how would you prefer to receive this data? >>>> I'll have to >>>> >>>>> > > write a daemon that provides userspace control (periodic >>>> cleanup as well as >>>> >>>>> > > reading the performance stream), so the world's kinda our >>>> oyster. I can >>>> >>>>> > > stick to Kathie's original format (and dump it to a named >>>> pipe, perhaps?), >>>> >>>>> > > a condensed format that only shows what you want to use, an >>>> efficient >>>> >>>>> > > binary format if you feel like parsing that... >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > It would be great if we could combine efforts a bit here so we >>>> don't >>>> >>>>> > fork the codebase more than we have to. I.e., if "upstream" >>>> epping and >>>> >>>>> > whatever daemon you end up writing can agree on data format etc >>>> that >>>> >>>>> > would be fantastic! Added Simon to Cc to facilitate this :) >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > Briefly what I've discussed before with Simon was to have the >>>> ability to >>>> >>>>> > aggregate the metrics in the kernel (WiP PR [0]) and have a >>>> userspace >>>> >>>>> > utility periodically pull them out. What we discussed was doing >>>> this >>>> >>>>> > using an LPM map (which is not in that PR yet). The idea would >>>> be that >>>> >>>>> > userspace would populate the LPM map with the keys (prefixes) >>>> they >>>> >>>>> > wanted statistics for (in LibreQOS context that could be one >>>> key per >>>> >>>>> > customer, for instance). Epping would then do a map lookup into >>>> the LPM, >>>> >>>>> > and if it gets a match it would update the statistics in that >>>> map entry >>>> >>>>> > (keeping a histogram of latency values seen, basically). >>>> Simon's PR >>>> >>>>> > below uses this technique where userspace will "reset" the >>>> histogram >>>> >>>>> > every time it loads it by swapping out two different map >>>> entries when it >>>> >>>>> > does a read; this allows you to control the sampling rate from >>>> >>>>> > userspace, and you'll just get the data since the last time you >>>> polled. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Thank's Toke for summarzing both the current state and the plan >>>> going >>>> >>>>> forward. I will just note that this PR (and all my other work with >>>> >>>>> ePPing/BPF-PPing/XDP-PPing/I-suck-at-names-PPing) will be more or >>>> less >>>> >>>>> on hold for a couple of weeks right now as I'm trying to finish >>>> up a >>>> >>>>> paper. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> > I was thinking that if we all can agree on the map format, then >>>> your >>>> >>>>> > polling daemon could be one userspace "client" for that, and >>>> the epping >>>> >>>>> > binary itself could be another; but we could keep compatibility >>>> between >>>> >>>>> > the two, so we don't duplicate effort. >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > Similarly, refactoring of the epping code itself so it can be >>>> plugged >>>> >>>>> > into the cpumap-tc code would be a good goal... >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Should probably do that...at some point. In general I think it's >>>> a bit >>>> >>>>> of an interesting problem to think about how to chain multiple >>>> XDP/tc >>>> >>>>> programs together in an efficent way. Most XDP and tc programs >>>> will do >>>> >>>>> some amount of packet parsing and when you have many chained >>>> programs >>>> >>>>> parsing the same packets this obviously becomes a bit wasteful. >>>> In the >>>> >>>>> same time it would be nice if one didn't need to manually merge >>>> >>>>> multiple programs together into a single one like this to get rid >>>> of >>>> >>>>> this duplicated parsing, or at least make that process of merging >>>> those >>>> >>>>> programs as simple as possible. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> > -Toke >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > [0] https://github.com/xdp-project/bpf-examples/pull/59 >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> När du skickar e-post till Karlstads universitet behandlar vi >>>> dina personuppgifter. >>>> >>>>> When you send an e-mail to Karlstad University, we will process >>>> your personal data. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> LibreQoS mailing list >>>> >>>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> Robert Chacón >>>> >>> CEO | JackRabbit Wireless LLC >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > LibreQoS mailing list >>>> > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work: >>>> >>>> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz >>>> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> LibreQoS mailing list >> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos >> > > > -- > Robert Chacón > CEO | JackRabbit Wireless LLC > _______________________________________________ > LibreQoS mailing list > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos >