[Cake] Dropping dropped

[Adrian Popescu]

Hello,

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:
> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/779738/771e8f7050c26ade/

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
done.


>
> * 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.
>
> https://github.com/dtaht/fq_codel_fast
>
> with everything I ripped out in that it was about 5% less cpu to start
> with.
>

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
>
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/net/sched/sch_mqprio.c
>
> 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...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cake/attachments/20190216/053bb3c6/attachment.html>