2016-04-21 15:12 GMT-07:00 Michael Ma :
> 2016-04-21 5:41 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
>> On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 22:51 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>>> 2016-04-20 15:34 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
>>> > On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:24 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>>> >> 2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
>>> >>
2016-04-21 5:41 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
> On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 22:51 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>> 2016-04-20 15:34 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
>> > On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:24 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>> >> 2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
>> >> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma
On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 22:51 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
> 2016-04-20 15:34 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
> > On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:24 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
> >> 2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
> >> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
> >> >> I didn't really know that multi
2016-04-20 15:34 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
> On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:24 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>> 2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
>> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>> >> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
>> >> that each txq can
On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 14:24 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
> 2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
> >> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
> >> that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we d
2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
> On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
>> that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we don't
>> really have multiple interfaces...
>>
>> With this MQ
I think that it isn't a good solution - unless you can bind specified
host (src/dst) to specified txq. Usually traffic is spreaded on txqs by
src+dst IP (or even IP:port) hash which results in traffic spreading
among all mqs on device, and wrong bandwidth limiting (N*bandwidth on
multi-session
On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 16:05 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
> Would definitely appreciate that. If you can share the patch it will
> be helpful as well. Let me know if I can help with this...
Sure, here is what I am going to test :
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_
2016-04-15 15:54 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
> On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 15:46 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>> 2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
>> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>> >> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
>> >> that each txq can
On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 15:46 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
> 2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
> >> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
> >> that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we d
2016-04-08 7:19 GMT-07:00 Eric Dumazet :
> On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
>> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
>> that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we don't
>> really have multiple interfaces...
>>
>> With this MQ
2016-03-31 20:44 GMT-07:00 John Fastabend :
> On 16-03-31 04:48 PM, Michael Ma wrote:
>> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
>> that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we don't
>> really have multiple interfaces...
>
> MQ will assign a default
On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:48 -0700, Michael Ma wrote:
> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
> that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we don't
> really have multiple interfaces...
>
> With this MQ solution we'll still need to assign transmit q
2016-03-31 19:19 GMT-07:00 David Miller :
> From: Michael Ma
> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:48:43 -0700
>
>> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
> ...
>
> Please stop top-posting.
Sorry that I wasn't aware of this...
On 16-03-31 04:48 PM, Michael Ma wrote:
> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
> that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we don't
> really have multiple interfaces...
MQ will assign a default qdisc to each txq and the default qdisc can
be chan
From: Michael Ma
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:48:43 -0700
> I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
...
Please stop top-posting.
I didn't really know that multiple qdiscs can be isolated using MQ so
that each txq can be associated with a particular qdisc. Also we don't
really have multiple interfaces...
With this MQ solution we'll still need to assign transmit queues to
different classes by doing some math on the bandwidth
Thanks for the suggestion - I'll try the MQ solution out. It seems to
be able to solve the problem well with the assumption that bandwidth
can be statically partitioned.
2016-03-31 12:18 GMT-07:00 Jesper Dangaard Brouer :
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:20:03 -0700 Michael Ma wrote:
>
>> I know this m
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Michael Ma wrote:
> As far as I understand the design of TC is to simplify locking schema
> and minimize the work in __qdisc_run so that throughput won’t be
> affected, especially with large packets. However if the scenario is
> that multiple classes in the queuei
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:20:03 -0700 Michael Ma wrote:
> I know this might be an old topic so bare with me – what we are facing
> is that applications are sending small packets using hundreds of
> threads so the contention on spin lock in __dev_xmit_skb increases the
> latency of dev_queue_xmit si
Hi -
I know this might be an old topic so bare with me – what we are facing
is that applications are sending small packets using hundreds of
threads so the contention on spin lock in __dev_xmit_skb increases the
latency of dev_queue_xmit significantly. We’re building a network QoS
solution to avoi
21 matches
Mail list logo
