On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, Jonathan Morton wrote:
On 23 Mar, 2015, at 02:24, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have long maintained it was possible to build a better fq_codel-like
policer without doing htb rate shaping, ("bobbie"), and I am tempted
to give it a go in the coming months.
I have a hazy picture in my mind, now, of how it could be made to work.
A policer doesn’t actually maintain a queue, but it is possible to calculate
when the currently-arriving packet would be scheduled for sending if a shaped
FIFO was present, in much the same way that cake actually performs such
scheduling at the head of a real queue. The difference between that time and
the current time is a virtual sojourn time which can be fed into the Codel
algorithm. Then, when Codel says to drop a packet, you do so.
Because there’s no queue management, timer interrupts nor flow segregation, the
overhead should be significantly lower than an actual queue. And there’s a
reasonable hope that involving Codel will give better results than either a
brick-wall or a token bucket.
are we running into performance issues with fq_codel? I thought all the problems
were with HTB or ingress shaping.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
