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 <t...@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@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake