Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 10:00:15 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Peilin Ye <peilin.ye@bytedance.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 0/5] net: Qdisc backpressure
 infrastructure
Message-ID: <YyigH0IvLZ8iGIvf@pop-os.localdomain>
References: <cover.1651800598.git.peilin.ye@bytedance.com>
 <cover.1661158173.git.peilin.ye@bytedance.com>
 <20220822091737.4b870dbb@kernel.org>
 <Ywzu/ey83T8QCT/Z@pop-os.localdomain>
 <20220829172111.4471d913@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220829172111.4471d913@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 05:21:11PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:53:17 -0700 Cong Wang wrote:
> > > Similarly to Eric's comments on v1 I'm not seeing the clear motivation
> > > here. Modern high speed UDP users will have a CC in user space, back
> > > off and set transmission time on the packets. Could you describe your
> > > _actual_ use case / application in more detail?  
> > 
> > Not everyone implements QUIC or CC, it is really hard to implement CC
> > from scratch. This backpressure mechnism is much simpler than CC (TCP or
> > QUIC), as clearly it does not deal with any remote congestions.
> > 
> > And, although this patchset only implements UDP backpressure, it can be
> > applied to any other protocol easily, it is protocol-independent.
> 
> No disagreement on any of your points. But I don't feel like 
> you answered my question about the details of the use case.

Do you need a use case for UDP w/o QUIC? Seriously??? There must be
tons of it...

Take a look at UDP tunnels, for instance, wireguard which is our use
case. ByteDance has wireguard-based VPN solution for bussiness. (I hate
to brand ourselves, but you are asking for it...)

Please do research on your side, as a netdev maintainer, you are
supposed to know this much better than me.

Thanks.