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 7981E3CB41 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:15:40 -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=1523466938; bh=rL9gJazIoCKP692qjmeQbJFxXSH9yFNW+JrZLiY9YYA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=xfZfz5GajQ8z3kVAiStQCi2bjrEarb077qHbjIW5MKp8eg4ziaDZiVAut2IumjQRP TqkUff1Zf7MRiBYYpVAAl4gOzbPPAHsha+WzxssYT16d7J1NLhwTMnX/2yz5VFu+jB FMqiY+Fl3M73Yuv+AZwXMqIPrBYFC4MPJq8TbPI0ulzMD4w8FatMKQVJDLh5cPm/eZ lri17jC3mHweyiFzJwbxW6vlK/xXUJxTaHhRYX0uMsFIu3pi6NGqL/4vECBvvGy+XL N8KZZR9TPb0CuekeUs2vMbyfPg2DkB6LMCMbZGY9LypgI3/57LQYncaOqnzVzRi+hs ryuTGHYqhb6fA== To: Jonathan Morton Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: References: <87in8xahqp.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:15:37 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <874lkhacli.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 17:15:40 -0000 Jonathan Morton writes: >> On 11 Apr, 2018, at 6:24 pm, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: >>=20 >> So, um, did we cram so many features into Cake that it no longer uses >> less CPU? Can anyone confirm these results? > > To be sure about this, it seems wise to configure Cake to turn off as > many of the new features as possible. That means selecting "besteffort > flows nonat" mode at least. > > I forget whether simplest.qos correctly uses the built-in shaper with > Cake, rather than just layering it with HTB as usual. If not, then of > course Cake will use more CPU, and we should be grateful that it's by > a relatively small margin (maybe 15%). It is definitely using Cake as the shaper; in besteffort mode, but with nat and triple-isolation enabled I think. I'll run another test tomorrow with those disabled. > There's also a minor complication in that Cake and fq_codel behave > differently when handed superpackets. A fair comparison requires > switching aggregation modes off for both of them. I *think* offloads were turned off for those tests; but I'll double check... Also would be nice to get a measure of the smoothness of the shaper; will see if I can't extract that from a pcap file or something... -Toke