[Cake] Dropping dropped
adriannnpopescu at gmail.com
Sat Feb 16 04:35:30 EST 2019
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:45 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> I still regard inbound shaping as our biggest deployment problem,
> especially on cheap hardware.
> Some days I want to go back to revisiting the ideas in the "bobbie"
> shaper, other days...
> In terms of speeding up cake:
> * At higher speeds (e.g. > 200mbit) cake tends to bottleneck on a
> single cpu, in softirq. A lwn article just went by about a proposed
> set of improvements for that:
Will this help devices with a single core CPU?
> * Hardware multiqueue is more and more common (APU2 has 4). FQ_codel
> is inherently parallel and could take advantage of hardware
> multiqueue, if there was a better way to express it. What happens
> nowadays is you get the "mq" scheduler with 4 fq_codel instances, when
> running at line rate, but I tend to think with 64 hardware queues,
> increasingly common in the >10GigE, having 64k fq_codel queues is
> excessive. I'd love it if there was a way to have there be a divisor
> in the mq -> subqdisc code so that we would have, oh, 32 queues per hw
> queue in this case.
> Worse, there's no way to attach a global shaped instance to that
> hardware, e.g. in cake, which forces all those hardware queues (even
> across cpus) into one. The ingress mirred code, here, is also a
> problem. a "cake-mq" seemed feasible (basically you just turn the
> shaper tracking into an atomic operation in three places), but the
> overlying qdisc architecture for sch_mq -> subqdiscs has to be
> extended or bypassed, somehow. (there's no way for sch_mq to
> automagically pass sub-qdisc options to the next qdisc, and there's no
> reason to have sch_mq
The problem I deal with is performance on even lower end hardware with a
single queue. My experience with mq has been limited.
> * I really liked the ingress "skb list" rework, but I'm not sure how
> to get that from A to B.
What was this skb list rework? Is there a patch somewhere?
> * and I have a long standing dream of being able to kill off mirred
> entirely and just be able to write
> tc qdisc add dev eth0 ingress cake bandwidth X
Ingress on its own seems to be a performance hit. Do you think this would
reduce the performance hit?
> * native codel is 32 bit, cake is 64 bit. I
Was there something else you forgot to write here?
> * hashing three times as cake does is expensive. Getting a partial
> hash and combining it into a final would be faster.
Could you elaborate how this would look, please? I've read the code a while
ago. It might be that I didn't figure out all the places where hashing is
> * 8 way set associative is slower than 4 way and almost
> indistinguishable from 8. Even direct mapping
This should be easy to address by changing the 8 ways to to 4. Was there
something else you wanted to write here?
> * The cake blue code is rarely triggered and inline
> I really did want cake to be faster than htb+fq_codel, I started a
> project to basically ressurrect "early cake" - which WAS 40% faster
> than htb+fq_codel and add in the idea *only* of an atomic builtin
> hw-mq shaper a while back, but haven't got back to it.
> with everything I ripped out in that it was about 5% less cpu to start
Perhaps further improvements made to the codel_vars struct will also help
fq_codel_fast. Do you think this could be improved further?
A cake_fast might be worth a shot.
> I can't tell you how many times I've looked over
> hoping that enlightment would strike and there was a clean way to get
> rid of that layer of abstraction.
> But coming up with how to run more stuff in parallel was beyond my rcu-foo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cake