Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:00:26 +0100

"Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email-masked]> writes:

>> > +     MAX_QUEUED_INCOMING_HANDSHAKES = 4096, /* TODO: replace this with DQL */
>> > +     MAX_STAGED_PACKETS = 128,
>> > +     MAX_QUEUED_PACKETS = 1024 /* TODO: replace this with DQL */
>>
>> Yes, please (on the TODO) :)
>>
>> FWIW, since you're using pointer rings I think the way to do this is
>> probably to just keep the limits in place as a maximum size, and then
>> use DQL (or CoDel) to throttle enqueue to those pointer rings instead of
>> just letting them fill.
>>
>> Happy to work with you on this (as I believe I've already promised), but
>> we might as well do that after the initial version is merged...
>
> I've actually implemented this a few times, but DQL always seems too
> slow to react properly, and I haven't yet been able to figure out
> what's happening. Let's indeed work on this after the initial version
> is merged. I think this change, and several more like it, will be the
> topic of some interesting discussions. But that doesn't need to happen
> /now/ I don't think.

Agreed. Let's wait until the initial version is merged and use that as a
base to benchmark against... :)

-Toke