From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 453953CB41 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:16:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1523466977; bh=AN2Lb8zrQx2ItadmMyuvGw8BkrSxFY5SG20GqG0VxxA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=IoOezth8Yij/f1jXKjFKy29zqeXSx1+vGqDUMRqlvpqrycsuZsHgra5ycujIvDB7O oAcbV5e61s2h0WT8qAnKxerZmTN2HavDAwOulqD+miBwlsati1AyStogggJyUOiXUN q3e3tX5jHDoBfUVQnBp6QyIGcRuLUGWDOVsRiXVQfTIF0pUgympuuZPjDLM2bf1nls OqV5VEc4ezSWlsXSUVE++RvpznUf6wjLvlt4dRxT3q90cN8mKO0yzmdVbJvR9APNi2 tjcabZz1UMqx0khmT5Kb6yCHsl8dUYs5hLTHdx4/4Q1ukhBDf9PaAXNKAhf8QQL4f+ LLp3evd7LF+qQ== To: Pete Heist Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: References: <87in8xahqp.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:16:16 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <871sflackf.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] Cake not more CPU efficient than HTB+FQ-CoDel (anymore)? X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:16:18 -0000 Pete Heist writes: > For what it=E2=80=99s worth, that=E2=80=99s what I also saw testing Cake = on the APU2 > late last year, and the ER-X platform earlier. I actually never knew > that Cake used less CPU at some point. Sorry for no supporting > detail... :) Anecdotal supporting evidence is fine. Just needed a sanity check :) -Toke