[Cake] Cake not more CPU efficient than HTB+FQ-CoDel (anymore)?

[Pete Heist]

For what it’s worth, that’s 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... :)

Pete

> On Apr 11, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke at toke.dk> wrote:
> 
> So we've been saying that one of the benefits of Cake is less CPU usage;
> but while trying to benchmark this I got results that would seem to
> indicate the opposite.
> 
> See attached graph + data files. Basically, I setup a shaper on an
> Archer C7 with sqm-scripts simplest.qos. Both HTB+FQ-CoDel and Cake
> manages to shape at 250 Mbps, where Cake even shows a bit lower latency.
> That is good.
> 
> However, when I change the configuration to 400 Mbps (more than the
> Archer CPU can handle), Cake tops out at ~260 Mbps, while HTB+FQ-CoDel
> manages ~305 Mbps and a slightly lower latency. In both cases I see the
> characteristic 95% sirq CPU usage in 'top' on the Archer while the test
> is running.
> 
> So, um, did we cram so many features into Cake that it no longer uses
> less CPU? Can anyone confirm these results?
> 
> The tests were run on an openwrt nightly image from today, which has the
> latest Cake version from the Cobalt branch.
> 
> 
> -Toke
> 
> <cake-vs-fqcodel-cpulimit.pdf><tcp_1up-2018-04-11T165952.024206.FQ-CoDel_250_Mbps.flent.gz><tcp_1up-2018-04-11T170134.227613.Cake_250_Mbps.flent.gz><tcp_1up-2018-04-11T170457.254899.Cake_400_Mbps.flent.gz><tcp_1up-2018-04-11T170647.320916.FQ-CoDel_400_Mbps.flent.gz>_______________________________________________
> Cake mailing list
> Cake at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake