From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-x22a.google.com (mail-wr0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D96883B29E for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:49:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id w95so15491243wrc.2 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:49:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6E+7zOGqzVsuE3pyigoEvGDq4nYLnvgQdjkDcDo9+VE=; b=KQQjrtphBVK+c5dHW3hFAzgcPvhJ4EdWA9htzHOWxqIdeq5dl8F2QVC1FQP9NJm8ls 7aO1eS+fwi+a8DyZTzztj+rVQO3tHzIY442LsMozKSw8GCUc2UgaoBZFnPhy2SGmGojF csg1ZAmwxiuIZUCN4E4OgjQhkZh8SEGee6h6TkMlrn1OvPbqHtADEduwMDOhLuy7Yo/s PynR+O7cHn0IffzTxlGHedAYUGPTHOSBxF1yh3NarwGz50MfgHlZqL4trOaR0oCc6mKX kRzfaazy8vuJ57X8SW0xecjYIlepeTEhT+No9HYTcQAb0AW6i249LGyrLlevqoqVdQoO 9qWw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6E+7zOGqzVsuE3pyigoEvGDq4nYLnvgQdjkDcDo9+VE=; b=Z3Ng7E5PevIf2gBWQ1hig8N6p8jdX5buKgSuGZk4qGcS1Ez3n5GWTpbeXFP/VSucDF B88atVRTtxthm2vKxrBWlIPGD8SjQEu1tNSuKExe5lWaOJuLZXQ5/cZ6Ru73Ug15e9m0 qVgolB/kAaPnIyY+7DCM3CLah62AC87YqdhFc4FU8IqvGhF/0y8J0EXJkn49HF9xeg7S +xxTPEz0tsdTQUk4Iz1Groij8nC/GrKz3laEPnLqqppwFXIe6MCwF1bIfLIDhgUT73Xa Kml9qhp0B4Z5FminMfllSJLTsEHDFrE7T3OB9SJvhb57HnIFApePuUF0VimJGk0ZW5n5 4KbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX57+Xp/2nr6HQjHjv8KRHapaXFUbGQWqLIsT8BDuV5xF+qEB7Cn 3oNnLoWviYOpO2GPKH0OIZY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZh+zXbPkgEd5GRGnq+FeNtfjhi2X/VAUylW9Svf+ZeXfOEOTfK1gxX6zVt0afYpOVFaS8GBQ== X-Received: by 10.223.139.3 with SMTP id n3mr13292844wra.166.1511376542986; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:49:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.72.0.130] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.99.119.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o135sm2800337wmg.1.2017.11.22.10.49.02 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:49:02 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Pete Heist In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:49:01 +0100 Cc: Cake List Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9550F1F5-A808-41DB-9523-D5AD565F1474@gmail.com> References: <107CB879-B196-40F1-A7C2-08B963B7A835@gmail.com> To: Dave Taht X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] small cake_hash optimization? 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, 22 Nov 2017 18:49:04 -0000 > On Nov 22, 2017, at 7:38 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 > It is somewhat unfair to not include the pfifo bandwidth on the test > (a cpu cost/byte might be a better metric), also pfifo_fast has three > tiers of classification in it. Yeah, it=E2=80=99s probably better to not try to subtract the pfifo_fast = system time out in the way that I did. I should probably just compare = cake with and without the change, using a more accurate tool. I don=E2=80=99t see how the change could hurt, but I also now am not = sure it helps much either. I guess it=E2=80=99s just two divs per call = to cake_hash, which is obviously going to happen more at GigE. Thanks for the advice=E2=80=A6