From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-x244.google.com (mail-pa0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::244]) (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 B0FA73B25E; Sun, 15 May 2016 19:07:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pa0-x244.google.com with SMTP id xm6so2336441pab.3; Sun, 15 May 2016 16:07:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/SMIAK3yv1eFkvlvpRZ+pkNfQxQZWBfifjAGjPPiUrE=; b=C+oH4fLMzB4wLb00S/2KvaHs4qI9n13tTiOHTPQ+MIP3bAJPW86ZmUv4dx9+xYfhn5 6K97iABD2CakBj8+Jt0aqE9ZZjl0Sj+a46fUoIOpex1CX4k9jCTYha394Os0HfmeAwbN pugel1jkfWJKoLdRlDN0Sx6TAgc2+FxVfmChNXXHlI37pQJMKpPIaR5uBqN4fsjLpDVQ pRYRo1DX/Nz1z0+xtVJZWnp6fM62gwikDiA3P5jN3hhGpd4Kv7phmuk2e41YqiZNAZOU gpvn1fowuAvgH7BbY9CLFOGMUeOPP9Ab3oql5DQwMf0B2+NMNHkn3y9KZqnCOGdirmoP dfoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/SMIAK3yv1eFkvlvpRZ+pkNfQxQZWBfifjAGjPPiUrE=; b=O1xXBGBt5xRgvnbc9FzJItPRbh8krivCri9gsYNJv5yCH2SYIeR+EHJO+qibuD+ckT zTLBSlOeW2zNMWPzt8rU4okHnRy3K6Y2vupMfInV0b8PpJSBfmNsDL8Vx7b8Ww02YGAu oDRWXapyldsBXp1SuFgMkg6KZNh18UxahCtBDbLW56jvBg94ojKtCZKlK48cw2Y8YjVN q5wQ8bK4B0dKHynTUG5AKVlWU+/muyXx/3VeaLKoCvUxGxCQrL84wUNLa7hHuAQYIP8s N8x9cw4c3Rbn3+/VZ+IpMA6HP8JmD2rFCjo/Gd8V6iyw27nak2AMqOqRC3YkqWb6P8jZ RgRQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVxX4Co5xW6R91P3654kza70Urn+COGe+N/fTEFUutjHL1dPmPIh+iVb9secFt7Zg== X-Received: by 10.66.141.139 with SMTP id ro11mr21539330pab.74.1463353663913; Sun, 15 May 2016 16:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.29.163.147] ([172.29.163.147]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id c190sm42586505pfb.33.2016.05.15.16.07.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 15 May 2016 16:07:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1463353661.18194.50.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> From: Eric Dumazet To: Roman Yeryomin Cc: Dave Taht , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Felix Fietkau , Jonathan Morton , "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , ath10k , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , OpenWrt Development List , Michal Kazior Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:07:41 -0700 In-Reply-To: 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] OpenWRT wrong adjustment of fq_codel defaults (Was: [Codel] fq_codel_drop vs a udp flood) X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 23:07:44 -0000 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) 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. You basically have FQ, with no Codel effect, but with the associated cost of Codel (having to take timestamps)