[Cake] cake memory consumption

Mon Sep 16 09:22:40 EDT 2019

Am 16.09.2019 um 14:00 schrieb Dave Taht:
> I am puzzled as to why fq_codel_fast would use more ram than fq_codel
> would, was sce (gso-splotting) enabled?
that can by typical error tollerance. he just used "free" for comparisation
>
> similarly, the differences between hfsc and htb are interesting. I
> don't get that either.
>
> How many cake instances are being created?
according to his config, i assume 7
>
> And for the sake of discussion, what does cake standalone consume?
thats a rare condition for my testers. this is something for PC's but 
not for routers :-)
this is something i need to find out for myself on my routers
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:22 AM Sebastian Gottschall
> <s.gottschall at newmedia-net.de> wrote:
>> after we found out serious out of memory issues on smaller embedded devices (128 mb ram) we made some benchmarks with different schedulers
>> with the result that cake takes a serious amount of memory. we use the out of tree cake module and we use it class based since we have complex methods of doing qos per interface, per mac addresse or even per
> I note that I often thought about having mac address functionality
> might be a valuable mode for cake.
that wouldnt help. there are many variations with multiple different 
settings for different mac addresses. as far as i have seen cake is not 
designed to work like this. this is why we
have to use a class / qdisc tree in my case
>
>> ip/network. so its not just simple cake on a single interface solution. we made some benchmarks with different schedulers. does anybody have a solution for making that better?
> With such complexity required I'd stick to hfsc + fq_X rather than
> layer in cake.
yea. i told that too. but people complain that cake runs soooooooo much 
better. or at least a little bit. hard to get around this argument
>
> Understanding the model (sh -x the tc commands for, say, hfsc +
> something and htb + something ) your users require, though, would be
> helpful. We tried to design cake so that a jillion optimizations such
> as ack prioritization, per network fq (instead per flow/per host) -
> but we couldn't possibly cover all use cases in it with out more
> feedback from the field.
>
> Still... such a big difference in memory use doesn't add up. Cake has
> a larger fixed memory allocation
4 mb max as i have seen. but by 7 its coming up to 28. but i still see 
much more here. consider that i implemented the same limitation to 
fq_codel and also fq_codel_fast
(model specific. on bigger devices i dont restrict he memory to 4 mb)
> than fq_codel, but the rest is just packets which come from global memory.
>
> Can you point to a build and a couple targets we could try? I am
> presently travelling (in portugal) and won't
> be back online until later this week.
what do you mean with targets? the build for testing was always the 
same. i requested todo the test just with multiple schedulers which is 
switchable in my gui.

what i can do is doing a tree like print to visualize how its builded 
(or i simple print you out the qdisc/class/filters)

the test itself was made on a tplink archer c7 v2.

>> HTB/FQ_CODEL ------- 62M
>> HTB/SFQ ------- 62M
>> HTB/PIE ------- 62M
>> HTB/FQ_CODEL_FAST ------- 67M
>> HTB/CAKE -------111M
>>
>> HFSC/FQ_CODEL_FAST ------- 47M
>> HTB/PIE ------- 49M
>> HTB/SFQ ------- 50M
>> HFSC /FQ_CODEL ------- 52M
>> HFSC/CAKE -------109M
>>
>>
>> consider that the benchmark doesnt show the real values. its system overall and does not consider memory taken by the wireless driver for instance which is about 45 mb of ram for ath10k
>> so this makes all even more worse unfortunatly since there is not that many ram left for cake. just about 70mb maybe.
>> Am 08.09.2019 um 19:27 schrieb Jonathan Morton:
>>
>> You could also set it back to 'internet' and progressively reduce the
>> bandwidth parameter, making the Cake shaper into the actual bottleneck.
>> This is the correct fix for the problem, and you should notice an
>> instant improvement as soon as the bandwidth parameter is correct.
>>
>> Hand tuning this one link is not a problem. I'm searching for a set of settings that will provide generally good performance across a wide range of devices, links, and situations.
>>
>>  From what you've indicated so far there's nothing as effective as a correct bandwidth estimation if we consider the antenna (link) a black box. Expecting the user to input expected throughput for every link and then managing that information is essentially a non-starter.
>>
>> Radio tuning provides some improvement, but until ubiquiti starts shipping with Codel on non-router devices I don't think there's a good solution here.
>>
>> Any way to have the receiving device detect bloat and insert an ECN?
>>
>> That's what the qdisc itself is supposed to do.
>>
>> I don't think the time spent in the intermediate device is detectable at the kernel level but we keep track of latency for routing decisions and could detect bloat with some accuracy, the problem is how to respond.
>>
>> As long as you can detect which link the bloat is on (and in which direction), you can respond by reducing the bandwidth parameter on that half-link by a small amount.  Since you have a cooperating network, maintaining a time standard on each node sufficient to observe one-way delays seems feasible, as is establishing a normal baseline latency for each link.
>>
>> The characteristics of the bandwidth parameter being too high are easy to observe.  Not only will the one-way delay go up, but the received throughput in the same direction at the same time will be lower than configured.  You might use the latter as a hint as to how far you need to reduce the shaped bandwidth.
>>
>> Deciding when and by how much to *increase* bandwidth, which is presumably desirable when link conditions improve, is a more difficult problem when the link hardware doesn't cooperate by informing you of its status.  (This is something you could reasonably ask Ubiquiti to address.)
>>
>> I would assume that link characteristics will change slowly, and run an occasional explicit bandwidth probe to see if spare bandwidth is available.  If that probe comes through without exhibiting bloat, *and* the link is otherwise loaded to capacity, then increase the shaper by an amount within the probe's capacity of measurement - and schedule a repeat.
>>
>> A suitable probe might be 100x 1500b packets paced out over a second, bypassing the shaper.  This will occupy just over 1Mbps of bandwidth, and can be expected to induce 10ms of delay if injected into a saturated 100Mbps link.  Observe the delay experienced by each packet *and* the quantity of other traffic that appears between them.  Only if both are favourable can you safely open the shaper, by 1Mbps.
>>
>> Since wireless links can be expected to change their capacity over time, due to eg. weather and tree growth, this seems to be more generally useful than a static guess.  You could deploy a new link with a conservative "guess" of say 10Mbps, and just probe from there.
>>
>>   - Jonathan Morton
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cake mailing list
>> Cake at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cake mailing list
>> Cake at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
>
>