From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] fq_codel : interval servo on hosts
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:34:15 +0200
Message-ID: <1346772855.13121.40.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
References: <1346396137.2586.301.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<1346421031.2591.34.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<1346421466.2591.38.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<CAK6E8=cwpq0MVK6fcrOa=wTX237xQiVP2xzh0aX-AtuSmzt-sw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1346503884.7996.65.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<CAB_+Fg5xPRqEZNdH0mYogmm4LitMvycSLB-X1_7ryn4RY9FvSA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Tomas Hruby <thruby@google.com>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	codel@lists.bufferbloat.net
To: Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com>
Return-path: <codel-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAB_+Fg5xPRqEZNdH0mYogmm4LitMvycSLB-X1_7ryn4RY9FvSA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/codel>,
	<mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/codel>
List-Post: <mailto:codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel>,
	<mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
Sender: codel-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net
Errors-To: codel-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 08:10 -0700, Nandita Dukkipati wrote:
> The idea of using srtt as interval makes sense to me if alongside we
> also hash flows with similar RTTs into same bucket. But with just the
> change in interval, I am not sure how codel is expected to behave.
> 
> My understanding is: the interval (usually set to worst case expected
> RTT) is used to measure the standing queue or the "bad" queue. Suppose
> 1ms and 100ms RTT flows get hashed to same bucket, then the interval
> with this patch will flip flop between 1ms and 100ms. How is this
> expected to measure a standing queue? In fact I think the 1ms flow may
> land up measuring the burstiness or the "good" queue created by the
> long RTT flows, and this isn't desirable.
> 

Well, how things settle with a pure codel, mixing flows of very
different RTT then ?

It seems there is a high resistance on SFQ/fq_codel model because of the
probabilities of flows sharing a bucket.

So what about removing the stochastic thing and switch to a hash with
collision resolution ?