From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-x232.google.com (mail-qk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (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 4D99F3B29F; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 11:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id j129so124136922qkd.1; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 08:41:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=USWGo32EQuybYoSQzhnD3R/7MLWlDvKAtHJABsD6SK4=; b=WHwnNcgCEf3UMKay/HW9jIQJEa1069d9DsC2Ajo0eSNiiPZtoGeEnbdRmPnJZoOQsf goS49XtmVotNDsVtyCbRT7shatFo7Gvp/HWu6DB68J0ElRlnmWgI+HF57Jg6GpZ4b2q4 iArGG3EDWn4KjIb4QQGV0yc7zZncArrjVVErTnq3/Iwj25TbJyLh9EPUbeh1xmPo+us4 O1tQD77kdSMC6gUdee9ZV/cwbHGpZEcHkCI67RueEstPZvmCZP7uJHGpHHnseM/DVFoK 72dTgoMGonUTPcxvzD9jXqljb9Rae4FDEJxkah833YWspclVc+iUNMr7DKnwlkTE0LKy sVlg== 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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=USWGo32EQuybYoSQzhnD3R/7MLWlDvKAtHJABsD6SK4=; b=VBVEvoxWqVrvBoV3UNvZBkIQ3BMhNwM4lTm/oWdlZEjXFy3e7hI0N3zNrP52XO0v17 cjJKuBQ8Ieuos/0fQbiq7j6WFJgrznpGtNEdZEZIBUQiiXaX8Ke18P8xOoznqKFLiSOC Q05biewAF0ecgnDNa0XBFgCjP1drMX0+pVool6D8NRems3Wx7Bc5ne1lVJSZaCrPpprE gZz/AiPT4lsZTXCfJq7lC6BF2WSu0fm1XxDW7/waEDTBSzTv5eaxLl5B880oI1K+Nhyl VQKA8WARt6t8wiuJZ+GBGY8WK9RVfI6jfO+2eipX+uxVS5MC7bFfr6ZuYX8uHQks6fZR GXag== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rldt67K/jgfIa+/XPE6m0HT9SGbzEq3EqUEECY+PMcf/MS5xu8tlOdso/3fiCTfx4EZY9M2+ljRpfVtJA== X-Received: by 10.55.69.72 with SMTP id s69mr12587630qka.153.1475336459994; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 08:40:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.146.164 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 08:40:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87twcw9tih.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87twcw9tih.fsf@toke.dk> From: Dave Taht Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 08:40:59 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , cake@lists.bufferbloat.net, make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, WireGuard mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [Cake] WireGuard Queuing, Bufferbloat, Performance, Latency, and related issues 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: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:41:00 -0000 My thought - given that at least on some platforms - encrypting 1000 packets at a time is a bad idea - would be something regulating the amount of data being crypted at a time, an equivalent to byte queue limits - BQL - BCL? byte crypto limits - to keep no more than, say, 1ms of data in that part of the subsystem. ... also pulling stuff out of order from an already encrypted thing leads to the same IV problems we had in mac80211.