From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [45.145.95.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF2013B29D; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 08:50:33 -0500 (EST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1669211432; bh=3j5aYs13kaiXfwqGFm7pwUHRO+NWpbmrajN+FxnkQsw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=xZs/mWBdzwDBu+IeJnGqWyCORb7hgz5SeRRbxqssYjnWV7x0j5E6g8VnP/uhkbit/ DwsEogCN9kvAQFH+RwW01U9PPVQI5bUCDq1BPvsd21iJT40HHhd73jLcSXqsbL8doB C2JRROW5XZnK1I/wgiW/MkgJkKskMP/iyP8QLkObhPG+D/5COIgNu2m2Hg/302Bjlw kyHwyz6BPBmWfFjX06xpGzOFmFebMygGn/MsJXtlYuE2cyA0lUULUHvJkkPF+bw4ac GTEFJMggYr7f0A9LEDLVO5NzP47Tz51UNdza8sQaFGSkDaRuZ1dTeaqstMPDW5Pct1 Q7WH9lzRK9ZpQ== To: Bob McMahon Cc: Neal Cardwell , Make-Wifi-fast , BBR Development , bloat In-Reply-To: References: <87r0xuvhgp.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 14:50:32 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87cz9dvkyf.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [Bloat] [bbr-dev] Aggregating without bloating - hard times for tcp and wifi 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: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:50:34 -0000 Bob McMahon writes: > Does the TSQ code honor no-aggregation per voice access class or > TCP_NODELAY where the app making the socket write calls knows that the WiFi > aggregation isn't likely helpful? Sorry, my Linux stack expertise is quite > limited. TSQ only influences the buffering in the TCP layer. The WiFi stack will still limit aggregation using its own logic (I think it turns it off entirely for voice?). TCP_NODELAY is also orthogonal to TSQ; TSQ only kicks in when there's a bunch of data buffered, in which case TCP_NODELAY has no effect... -Toke