[Rpm] Alternate definitions of "working condition" - unnecessary?

[Jonathan Morton]

> On 11 Oct, 2021, at 10:31 am, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>>> (I am also wondering how reducing the default number of
>>> 	sub-queues from 1024 to 128 behaves on the background of the
>>> 	birthday paradox).
>> 
>> Not sure where the 128 comes from ?
> 
> See above:
>     [ sched:  FQ_CODEL  qlength:    0/128 ]
> but I might simply be misinterpreting the number here…

Yes, I think so.  This probably refers to the maximum number of packets that can be enqueued in total, and has no relation to the number of hash buckets that may or may not be present - though obviously you can't have more occupied queues than there are enqueued packets.

 - Jonathan Morton