Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com> writes: > On 2019-02-25 8:43 a.m., Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: >> On 2019-02-25 5:20 a.m., Leslie Monis wrote: >>> The current implementation of the PIE queuing discipline is >>> according to the >>> IETF draft [http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pan-aqm-pie-00] and >>> the paper >>> [PIE: A Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat Problem]. >>> However, a lot of necessary modifications and enhancements have >>> been proposed >>> in RFC 8033, which have not yet been incorporated in the source >>> code of Linux. >>> This patch series helps in achieving the same. >>> >>> Performance tests carried out using Flent [https://flent.org/] >>> >> >> +Cc the authors of PIE to double check these values. >> Please respond (it is how open source works!) and N/ACK > > Great. Bouncing addresses. > D. Taht - can you look at this?
Whose addresses are bouncing? The folk that did pie originally were mostly contractors and long ago moved on to other things. My taht.net address tends to bounce to vger as I long ago mandated starttls on all email transactions which is why I use my gmail account for postings there. I keep hoping that one day vger will support starttls... posting it here as I'm an optimist. I wasn't expecting to be cc'd on this submittal.... Pie seems to be mostly an abandoned CISCO effort outside of docsis-pie, at least at the moment. I've heard not a peep from them in years. (fq_codel seems to have mostly "won" in our world) I did review all these changes when they went by in v1, and aside from the ecn mistake ending up in the final RFC when I wasn't looking[1], approve of these changes to sch_pie to make it compliant with the rfc, finally. [1] We proposed refining pie's ecn handling here: https://github.com/gautamramk/FQ-PIE-for-Linux-Kernel/issues/2 Anyway: Acked-by: Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com>
