From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (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 B23693B29D for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 10:13:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id 14so28211565ioe.2 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 07:13:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YMAFSDy2KjxUSDbx1uO+qkTzULEO2U3cSdRE84RJVw4=; b=Nx25QMlWPjPXB7gM2hghElcWMIWpdhGBWVDQlDSd1+NhwaHmW8o/1YOiQTG3ty6J3h ICWbS6I5OXOyF2uZTuL0/ExkYvI90Sza4V5xL3ccm1k+laPqg3rH5+dPY1RpCV3WauYB ebWA3AcVzvD6MoC6P7l8jYlh9L2xm5W9OIDYRtZfOSpHUaLFiMGaYRcdjFZhaxXxYZCC SAvq3QhXubHtGMR2ydAzQhnWE0wn9PBOjFTROfhSGr2aT3AviUgKj7ikU5WaiQUwt45a Xf/A/c1S5jQrtUTY+btI7Ml4/QHCbd/l8M4TsXF9jMno+LVc9ayIV1j/nOHN/JSmiKkJ iZyQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YMAFSDy2KjxUSDbx1uO+qkTzULEO2U3cSdRE84RJVw4=; b=INhuKR7o4fWddyXErPC8TuHb0qlvriLWIOy3d/L12uLjD4LQEeRNraNxkewzyl10Mv 4ehdA4cdeC6PyuSp7QKAn1JmmwyFdMw+eSUemWRxBP9REJ4eE/weKiIdArLgFTCjIKBZ hKb0yaZ36kj5T1t0skNJvDez2Vtma6sZgAg1qIBzWAbg3RiB5HZ1lcvOP4FMGj7uCOKe Bk0VXc+B3vrPbRq7MIW2dobt06wQnPwfOdG7cmMDkJ8aW5X9SiXCosQpeGRJdeedr8om RnRrZvnj7tS/bkROJpTVL5bq6FcadPLOVvbx+5sKsXWVQdK63bpJtzuvvyoIm+IUXqXN s3tg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531lMK2wsJqihqVERtWoxK0XJLyNmoRPkkgUPWM4893r72Q+i6Og +tHlkSglXeHz0lEvdxvwIUZjtiUHP4ezXLzqt0Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJymKrLRlX5vdLcxXqKqnBzTBbE8JHBTyebCuRqHe1WTuD/MAsR+rrcPseaLN+ILuh5dJ40mjbcoa0F62q7DXxs= X-Received: by 2002:a02:a314:: with SMTP id q20mr7189640jai.104.1637680389419; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 07:13:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <67BC6CC2-F088-4C0D-8433-A09F4AC452FE@gmx.de> <87czmrcg0f.fsf@toke.dk> In-Reply-To: <87czmrcg0f.fsf@toke.dk> From: Dave Taht Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 07:12:55 -0800 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Cc: Sebastian Moeller , Cake List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] tossing acks into the background queue 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: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 15:13:11 -0000 On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 2:39 AM Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > > Sebastian Moeller writes: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > On 23 November 2021 08:32:06 CET, Dave Taht wrote= : > >>The context of my question is basically this: > >> > >>Is cake baked? Is it done? > > > > How about per MAC address fairness (useful for ISPs and to treat > > IPv4/6 equally)? > > > > How about configurable number of queues (again helpful for ISPs)? > > FWIW I don't think CAKE is the right thing for ISPs, except in a > deployment where there's a single CAKE instance per customer. For > anything else (i.e., a single shaper that handles multiple customers), > you really need hierarchical policy enforcement like in a traditional > HTB configuration. And retrofitting this on top of CAKE is going to > conflict with the existing functionality, so it probably has to be a > separate qdisc anyway. What progress has been made on breaking the HTB locks in the last few years= ? Given the enormous number of hw tx/rx queues we see today (64+ on 10gbit), trying to charge off bandwidth per queue in a cake-derived shaper and protecting the merge with rcu seemed plausible... > > > IMHO cake works pretty well, with the biggest issue being its CPU > > demands. As far as I understand however, that is caused by the shaper > > component and there low latency and throughput are in direct > > competition, if we want to lower the CPU latency demands we need to > > allow for bigger buffers that keep the link busy even if cake itself > > is not scheduled as precisely as we would desire or as e.g. BQL > > requires. > > Yes, as link speed increases, batching needs to increase to keep up. > This does not *have* to impact latency, as the faster link should keep > the granularity constant in the time domain. So experimenting with doing > this dynamically in CAKE might be worthwhile, but probably not trivial. > > And either way, CAKE is still going to be limited by being single core > only, and fixing that requires some serious surgery that I seem to > recall looking into and giving up at some point :( It was so long ago I don't remember what other issues came up at the time. ? I am seeing nvidia offloading red and htb. > -Toke --=20 I tried to build a better future, a few times: https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC