From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDBF921FE3C for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 61655A1; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:40:20 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1435657220; bh=v3pjyyIgJrogMGhK6OMBjbxz1JlfvaEjtyJAUbgVF2I=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=h7QbOhcTbLD2U2ka/+iusgnt4MgmXh8g5xQtDKUx4xMMDFn6z88Bc6IIGlQAcIywB suPAh9wavxhAdY7VJPErqkJk99aH48eUh6akQPcROLwrg2PGhb88gq5NyR7NZbIsQn S5j3oeULcGJ0vMnDqDc515hSqV0Bg3gIKd1Mqg9M= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5955A9F; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:40:20 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:40:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <04331509-F163-4184-90B4-8589073AFD62@gmx.de> <09BA156C-460D-4794-A082-33E805F3D6FD@gmx.de> <5436B48C-0803-46DA-B355-14E917A5BB37@gmx.de> <4E002218-174D-44F9-91A0-C7F34B9E83C7@gmx.de> <87pp4eomfx.fsf@alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk> <92199704-0522-447A-887A-1EE0E6AE4421@gmx.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't) X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:40:52 -0000 On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > >> attached is a patch for that, put it in your >> feeds/cero/kmod_sched_cake/patches >> directory, rebuild (make package/kmod-sched-cake/{clean,compile,install}) > > I compiled openwrt trunk with linux kernel v4.0 and this patch, and the > results are here . > > As far as I can tell sirq load is higher rather than lower so it doesn't seem > like kernel 4.0 has any significant performance benefits, rather the > opposite. So it seems I was mistaken. I now did some tests, with 4.0 with the cakepatch, with 3.18 with the cakepatch (that Dave sent the other day), and then 3.18 with regular cake as it is in the ceropackages repo yesterday. The columns are mss size, -R or not means reverse, so with -R main packet sizes are going in the server->client direction, ie flowing into eth0 which hosts the htb. Then it's the megabit/s as measured by iperf and then the sirq load as seen by top. This jumps around a bit so don't read too much into it. However, it looks like 4.0 is actually a slight improvement especially for smaller packet sizes and in the server-client direction. 4.0 cakepatch -M 200 -R 167 M 94% -M 300 -R 188 M 71% -M 600 -R 362 M 77% -R 861 M 88% -M 200 350 M 88% -M 300 380 M 80% -M 600 680 M 63% 860 M 55% 3.18 - cakepatch -M 200 -R 140M 83% -M 300 -R 167M 72% -M 600 -R 308M 69% -R 750M 82% -M 200 289M 74% -M 300 406M 73% -M 600 780M 80% 860M 57% 3.18 vanilla -M 200 -R 150M 90% -M 300 -R 166M 72% -M 600 -R 305M 68% -M -R 740M 82% -M 200 304M 80% -M 300 440M 80% -M 600 800M 81% 863M 56% -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se