fq_codel_drop vs a udp flood

[Dave Taht]

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 04/30/2016 08:41 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>>
>> There were a few things on this thread that went by, and I wasn't on
>> the ath10k list
>>
>> (https://www.mail-archive.com/ath10k@lists.infradead.org/msg04461.html)
>>
>> first up, udp flood...
>>
>>>>> From: ath10k <ath10k-boun... at lists.infradead.org> on behalf of Roman
>>>>> Yeryomin <leroi.li... at gmail.com>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 8:14 PM
>>>>> To: ath10k at lists.infradead.org
>>>>> Subject: ath10k performance, master branch from 20160407
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen performance patches were commited so I've decided to give it
>>>>> a try (using 4.1 kernel and backports).
>>>>> The results are quite disappointing: TCP download (client pov) dropped
>>>>> from 750Mbps to ~550 and UDP shows completely weird behavour - if
>>>>> generating 900Mbps it gives 30Mbps max, if generating 300Mbps it gives
>>>>> 250Mbps, before (latest official backports release from January) I was
>>>>> able to get 900Mbps.
>>>>> Hardware is basically ap152 + qca988x 3x3.
>>>>> When running perf top I see that fq_codel_drop eats a lot of cpu.
>>>>> Here is the output when running iperf3 UDP test:
>>>>>
>>>>>      45.78%  [kernel]       [k] fq_codel_drop
>>>>>       3.05%  [kernel]       [k] ag71xx_poll
>>>>>       2.18%  [kernel]       [k] skb_release_data
>>>>>       2.01%  [kernel]       [k] r4k_dma_cache_inv
>>
>>
>> The udp flood behavior is not "weird".  The test is wrong. It is so
>> filling
>> the local queue as to dramatically exceed the bandwidth on the link.
>
>
> It would be nice if you could provide backpressure so that you could
> simply select on the udp socket and use that to know when you can send
> more frames??

The qdisc version returns  NET_XMIT_CN to the upper layers of the
stack in the case
where the dropped packet's flow = the ingress packet's flow, but that
is after the
exhaustive search...

I don't know what effect (if any) that had on udp sockets. Hmm... will
look. Eric would "just know".

That might provide more backpressure in the local scenario. SO_SND_BUF
should interact with this stuff in some sane way...

... but over the wire from a test driver box elsewhere, tho, aside
from ethernet flow control itself, where enabled, no.

... but in that case you have a much lower inbound/outbound
performance disparity in the general case to start with... which can
still be quite high...

>
> Any idea how that works with codel?

Beautifully.

For responsive TCP flows. It immediately reduces the window without a RTT.

> Thanks,
> Ben
>
> --
> Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
> Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org