From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x244.google.com (mail-oi0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::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 192CF3B260; Thu, 5 May 2016 10:55:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x244.google.com with SMTP id i2so14268769oib.3; Thu, 05 May 2016 07:55:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=HZOSd/KvTsrz3shREx/HPHgXSLvq8Mc+SAGbz57J09w=; b=e/pS2mVCwbNKXw07yVR6HomJo6jLyPEXnLOs8MJMJfIKm5AKI/TlvJ1bMJoZ8IZGN6 OPfw7JyKA17rSKETDmCbqSNRAfY/MU1s7UAcP+ZpR97qVYUSxkFbWAGebrDrw6uwIGyb 7CbyKh3e4ftAfcyAheyg6Go6Z+lGetHLX+GelJtg0h4WvfgDuR/KE48ZURPhMAmT+DaJ RVOv3jR7xDyfmGkFzx0IbfqoQ+2fWQ9GdTsKEqoloGvE3axmD1hmv3iBRWopnt5rE3vi IZQSCIZnT7XnWtUwTnlrAG6w55WDtKf7EIwOII9I4wp3pWU/VnBKod+3mb6WHPwjw7Pq O4Pg== 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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=HZOSd/KvTsrz3shREx/HPHgXSLvq8Mc+SAGbz57J09w=; b=Q27o3w7ucAY1ZToaerua/Qqo83T9IwCtrCS0gQDDLmid01HBOjtm7QIt84n/K1p5Ne Ss00TeuwewmwEgq9UY0EKmxx6uc3W/NiNDDmbpe8MfuFDZStYv4cZ8zS/Y6mlxLw9ejE xvaTWCBJsZsfQVKFkfvZYziO9sAQgVq0uJbH0ydlrPbAw8n7ZmGnB7h/QEhPPNz8/0BY RsPhHfbUnGvRXRzggN7LOnmVhZNOsjjd9s5TtDby3d5S1r5o4tx4fLguyBPHX0BQQmK7 +V+V8uXLQ8mNYQK+FtZrWHty6PTEu0mW9KcjmiwLvfYrdjZZp19xz6ywqtj6LIHupf14 1tUA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXGNW7/DOyqPimcnU4aAY/xKxryhomsEfqljidrwOEakTqBQ8VSieJo/Vv78VGJuA8RJDJzB+qIZjUQJg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.157.19.78 with SMTP id q14mr7675588otq.141.1462460144581; Thu, 05 May 2016 07:55:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.252.9 with HTTP; Thu, 5 May 2016 07:55:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <57258F41.8040600@candelatech.com> <1462114043.512818296@apps.rackspace.com> Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:55:44 +0300 Message-ID: From: Roman Yeryomin To: Dave Taht Cc: David Reed , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, Ben Greear , "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , ath10k Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] 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: Thu, 05 May 2016 14:55:45 -0000 On 5 May 2016 at 16:55, Roman Yeryomin wrote: > On 2 May 2016 at 21:40, Dave Taht wrote: >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: >>> On 1 May 2016 at 17:47, wrote: >>>> Maybe I missed something, but why is it important to optimize for a UDP flood? >>> >>> We don't need to optimize it to UDP but UDP is used e.g. by torrents >>> to achieve higher throughput and used a lot in general. >> >> Torrents use uTP congestion control and won't hit this function at >> all. And eric just made fq_codel_drop more efficient for tests that >> do. >> >> There are potentially zillions of other issues with ampdu's, txop >> usage, aggregate "packing", etc that can also affect and other >> protocools. >> >>> And, again, in this case TCP is broken too (750Mbps down to 550), so >>> it's not like Dave is saying that UDP test is broken, fq_codel is just >>> too hungry for CPU >> >> "fq_codel_drop" was too hungry for cpu. fixed. thx eric. :) >> >> I've never seen ath10k tcp throughput in the real world (e.g not wired >> up, over the air) even close to 750 under test on the ath10k (I've >> seen 300, and I'm getting some better gear up this week)... and >> everybody tests wifi differently. > > perhaps you didn't have 3x3 client and AP? > >> (for the record, what was your iperf tcp test line?). More people >> testing differently = good. > > iperf3 -c -t600 actually `iperf3 -c -t600 -R` for download, client POV