Hello
Using next-20170323 produce a huge performance regression on my sunxi boards.
On dwmac-sun8i, iperf goes from 94mbs/s to 37 when sending.
On cubieboard2(dwmac-sunxi), iperf made the kernel flood with "ndesc_get_rx_status: Oversized frame spanned multiple buffers"
and network is lost after.
Reverting aff3d9eff84399e433c4aca65a9bb236581bc082 fix the issue.
I still try to found which part of this patch mades the performance lower.
Regards
Corentin Labbe
Hi Corentin,
Às 10:08 AM de 3/23/2017, Corentin Labbe escreveu:
Hello
Using next-20170323 produce a huge performance regression on my sunxi boards.
On dwmac-sun8i, iperf goes from 94mbs/s to 37 when sending.
On cubieboard2(dwmac-sunxi), iperf made the kernel flood with "ndesc_get_rx_status: Oversized frame spanned multiple buffers"
and network is lost after.
Reverting aff3d9eff84399e433c4aca65a9bb236581bc082 fix the issue.
I still try to found which part of this patch mades the performance lower.
Regards
Corentin Labbe
I have a 4.21 QoS Core with 4 RX + 4 TX and detected no regression.
Could you please share the iperf cmds you are using in order for me to reproduce
in my side?
@stmmac users: It would be great if people that have a setup could also perform
teh same iperf test in order to clean in up for everyone.
Thanks,
Joao
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:12:18AM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:
Hi Corentin,
Às 10:08 AM de 3/23/2017, Corentin Labbe escreveu:
quoted
Hello
Using next-20170323 produce a huge performance regression on my sunxi boards.
On dwmac-sun8i, iperf goes from 94mbs/s to 37 when sending.
On cubieboard2(dwmac-sunxi), iperf made the kernel flood with "ndesc_get_rx_status: Oversized frame spanned multiple buffers"
and network is lost after.
Reverting aff3d9eff84399e433c4aca65a9bb236581bc082 fix the issue.
I still try to found which part of this patch mades the performance lower.
Regards
Corentin Labbe
I have a 4.21 QoS Core with 4 RX + 4 TX and detected no regression.
Could you please share the iperf cmds you are using in order for me to reproduce
in my side?
Às 10:20 AM de 3/23/2017, Corentin Labbe escreveu:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:12:18AM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:
quoted
Hi Corentin,
Às 10:08 AM de 3/23/2017, Corentin Labbe escreveu:
quoted
Hello
Using next-20170323 produce a huge performance regression on my sunxi boards.
On dwmac-sun8i, iperf goes from 94mbs/s to 37 when sending.
On cubieboard2(dwmac-sunxi), iperf made the kernel flood with "ndesc_get_rx_status: Oversized frame spanned multiple buffers"
and network is lost after.
Reverting aff3d9eff84399e433c4aca65a9bb236581bc082 fix the issue.
I still try to found which part of this patch mades the performance lower.
Regards
Corentin Labbe
I have a 4.21 QoS Core with 4 RX + 4 TX and detected no regression.
Could you please share the iperf cmds you are using in order for me to reproduce
in my side?
simple iperf -c serverip for both board
Ok, I am going to run my tests with a fresh net-next and come back to you soon.
Thanks,
Joao
From: Giuseppe CAVALLARO <hidden> Date: 2017-03-23 10:49:10
Hello
On 3/23/2017 11:20 AM, Corentin Labbe wrote:
quoted
I have a 4.21 QoS Core with 4 RX + 4 TX and detected no regression.
quoted
Could you please share the iperf cmds you are using in order for me to reproduce
in my side?
Joao, you have a really powerful HW integration with multiple channels
for both RX and TX.
Often this is not the same for other setup where, usually just a DMA0 is
present or, sometime, there
is just one RX extra channel.
My question is, what happens on this kind of configurations? Are we
still guarantying the best performances?
Also we have to guarantee, that the TSO and SG are always working.
Another point is the buffer sizes that
can be different among platforms.
The problem below reported by Corentin push me to think that there is a
bug, so we should
understand when this has been introduced and if likely fixed by some
configuration we are
not take care right now.
ndesc_get_rx_status: Oversized frame spanned multiple buffers"
Best Regards
Peppe
From: Giuseppe CAVALLARO <hidden> Date: 2017-03-23 10:51:31
On 3/23/2017 11:48 AM, Giuseppe CAVALLARO wrote:
Hello
On 3/23/2017 11:20 AM, Corentin Labbe wrote:
quoted
quoted
I have a 4.21 QoS Core with 4 RX + 4 TX and detected no regression.
quoted
Could you please share the iperf cmds you are using in order for me
to reproduce
quoted
in my side?
Joao, you have a really powerful HW integration with multiple channels
for both RX and TX.
Often this is not the same for other setup where, usually just a DMA0
is present or, sometime, there
is just one RX extra channel.
My question is, what happens on this kind of configurations? Are we
still guarantying the best performances?
Also we have to guarantee, that the TSO and SG are always working.
Another point is the buffer sizes that
can be different among platforms.
The problem below reported by Corentin push me to think that there is
a bug, so we should
understand when this has been introduced and if likely fixed by some
configuration we are
not take care right now.
ndesc_get_rx_status: Oversized frame spanned multiple buffers"
I wonder if this could be easily triggered by getting a big file via
FTP. So not properly related on performance benchs
peppe
Às 10:51 AM de 3/23/2017, Giuseppe CAVALLARO escreveu:
On 3/23/2017 11:48 AM, Giuseppe CAVALLARO wrote:
quoted
Hello
On 3/23/2017 11:20 AM, Corentin Labbe wrote:
quoted
quoted
I have a 4.21 QoS Core with 4 RX + 4 TX and detected no regression.
quoted
Could you please share the iperf cmds you are using in order for me to
reproduce
quoted
in my side?
Joao, you have a really powerful HW integration with multiple channels for
both RX and TX.
Often this is not the same for other setup where, usually just a DMA0 is
present or, sometime, there
is just one RX extra channel.
My question is, what happens on this kind of configurations? Are we still
guarantying the best performances?
Also we have to guarantee, that the TSO and SG are always working. Another
point is the buffer sizes that
can be different among platforms.
The problem below reported by Corentin push me to think that there is a bug,
so we should
understand when this has been introduced and if likely fixed by some
configuration we are
not take care right now.
ndesc_get_rx_status: Oversized frame spanned multiple buffers"
I wonder if this could be easily triggered by getting a big file via FTP. So not
properly related on performance benchs
I am going to do that test and check it out and also run iperf a couple of
times. I am counting on doing this today and send you later the results. If
anyone gets results sooner please share.
Às 10:51 AM de 3/23/2017, Giuseppe CAVALLARO escreveu:
quoted
On 3/23/2017 11:48 AM, Giuseppe CAVALLARO wrote:
quoted
Hello
On 3/23/2017 11:20 AM, Corentin Labbe wrote:
quoted
quoted
I have a 4.21 QoS Core with 4 RX + 4 TX and detected no regression.
quoted
Could you please share the iperf cmds you are using in order for me to
reproduce
quoted
in my side?
HW Version: 4.21 QoS Core in HAPS DX7 (FPGA)
The connection between the FPGA and PC where stmmac is running is PCIe.
My configurations are done in stmmac_pci. Here they are:
Hi Peppe,
Às 10:48 AM de 3/23/2017, Giuseppe CAVALLARO escreveu:
Hello
On 3/23/2017 11:20 AM, Corentin Labbe wrote:
quoted
quoted
I have a 4.21 QoS Core with 4 RX + 4 TX and detected no regression.
quoted
Could you please share the iperf cmds you are using in order for me to
reproduce
quoted
in my side?
Joao, you have a really powerful HW integration with multiple channels for both
RX and TX.
Often this is not the same for other setup where, usually just a DMA0 is present
or, sometime, there
is just one RX extra channel.
My opinion is that we should not have problems, since the majority of features
introduced are used if you configure rx queues > 1 or tx queues > 1, so if you
use the default (=1) those confiogurations will not take place.
My question is, what happens on this kind of configurations? Are we still
guarantying the best performances?
Also we have to guarantee, that the TSO and SG are always working. Another point
is the buffer sizes that
can be different among platforms.
We have to pay attention to the RX buffer size, since I had problems with DHCP
messages not being received because of little buffer size.
Currently TX buffer size is not configurable and in the future it should be
useful to include it too.
The problem below reported by Corentin push me to think that there is a bug, so
we should
understand when this has been introduced and if likely fixed by some
configuration we are
not take care right now.
Of course.
ndesc_get_rx_status: Oversized frame spanned multiple buffers"
Best Regards
Peppe