* Performance in stmmac
@ 2017-02-07 19:33 Joao Pinto
2017-02-08 18:40 ` David Miller
2017-02-13 12:58 ` Giuseppe CAVALLARO
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Joao Pinto @ 2017-02-07 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: niklas.cassel, Giuseppe CAVALLARO, Alexandre Torgue; +Cc: netdev
Hi to all,
I finished implementing the multi-queue / multi-channel in stmmac and I am now
making some tests.
The mechanism is working properly, but the performance could be better
(~440Mb/s) :). For measuring I am using iperf:
synopsys@pt02ipk1:~$ iperf -c 192.168.0.3 --port 5001 -t 20 -i 5
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 192.168.0.3, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 192.168.0.2 port 34272 connected with 192.168.0.3 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0- 5.0 sec 260 MBytes 436 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 5.0-10.0 sec 262 MBytes 440 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 10.0-15.0 sec 262 MBytes 440 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 15.0-20.0 sec 257 MBytes 431 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 0.0-20.0 sec 1.02 GBytes 437 Mbits/sec
I am seeing tx being performed in all queues, but rx is just being routed to
queue 0. The reason why only queue 0 is processing the packets is because I am
using priority tagged routing for now and iperf is not capable of producing
priority tagged traffic.
I am sending you this e-mail in order to know if you could suggest me a tool to
generate priority tagged traffic and if you have experience in tweaking stmmac
to improve performance.
Thanks,
Joao
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance in stmmac
2017-02-07 19:33 Performance in stmmac Joao Pinto
@ 2017-02-08 18:40 ` David Miller
2017-02-13 12:58 ` Giuseppe CAVALLARO
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2017-02-08 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joao.Pinto; +Cc: niklas.cassel, peppe.cavallaro, alexandre.torgue, netdev
From: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 19:33:52 +0000
> I am seeing tx being performed in all queues, but rx is just being routed to
> queue 0. The reason why only queue 0 is processing the packets is because I am
> using priority tagged routing for now and iperf is not capable of producing
> priority tagged traffic.
>
> I am sending you this e-mail in order to know if you could suggest me a tool to
> generate priority tagged traffic and if you have experience in tweaking stmmac
> to improve performance.
Multi-queue is only going to be effective on RX if you can do proper hashed
flow separation. That's the entire performance point of the feature.
If the chip cannot do this, your performance will be thusly limited.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance in stmmac
2017-02-07 19:33 Performance in stmmac Joao Pinto
2017-02-08 18:40 ` David Miller
@ 2017-02-13 12:58 ` Giuseppe CAVALLARO
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Giuseppe CAVALLARO @ 2017-02-13 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joao Pinto, niklas.cassel, Alexandre Torgue; +Cc: netdev
Hi Joao
On 2/7/2017 8:33 PM, Joao Pinto wrote:
> I am seeing tx being performed in all queues, but rx is just being routed to
> queue 0. The reason why only queue 0 is processing the packets is because I am
> using priority tagged routing for now and iperf is not capable of producing
> priority tagged traffic.
I wonder if you tried the multi-queue channels & AV/B stack.
Regards
Peppe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-02-13 12:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-02-07 19:33 Performance in stmmac Joao Pinto
2017-02-08 18:40 ` David Miller
2017-02-13 12:58 ` Giuseppe CAVALLARO
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.