From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=A2h5=QF=vger.kernel.org=netdev-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9251DC282D0
	for <netdev@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:56:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F3721473
	for <netdev@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:56:41 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="IKN1CO/l"
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1727977AbfA2O4k (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:56:40 -0500
Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:59338 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1727207AbfA2O4j (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:56:39 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch;
        s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version
        :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:
        Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc
        :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:
        List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
        bh=JKd2kEKjYa52E8SrqUsEY5Aqg2Tfz51x2UM0j52zG+o=; b=IKN1CO/lMEe7BGtcIU3j8UoSEb
        60WUIpNNkKRUl4f6AFvYSPr4Dz3JCLXRJfioFr+BixI0DemdYdio7Ppdrf6dU0TEu+DreR407BVIU
        OEQAZVc9tzQALqAQnaFtHuTOHvn78+p8w7QFUdnexDT6CVw/RPZkKdgEcGxw9AtDCavA=;
Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.89)
        (envelope-from <andrew@lunn.ch>)
        id 1goUoW-0001RL-9e; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:56:36 +0100
Date:   Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:56:36 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Marek =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beh=FAn?= <marek.behun@nic.cz>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: marvell 6190 NAT performance
Message-ID: <20190129145636.GL4765@lunn.ch>
References: <20190124212640.43813222@nic.cz>
 <ea329d29-36eb-0eec-666f-1cc12940b16f@gmail.com>
 <20190129152734.5bf998ea@dellmb.labs.office.nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190129152734.5bf998ea@dellmb.labs.office.nic.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 03:27:34PM +0100, Marek Behún wrote:
> Hi Florian,
> I've made a screenshot of perf top when doing the NAT throughput test
> without the switch (which too doesn't work on 1000mbps as I thought,
> but on ~680 mbps). What do you think about the result?
> 
> http://blackhole.sk/~kabel/tmp/a3700_nat_perf.png

Hi Marek

This is plain text, you can just cut/paste it into the email.

What you actually want to do is a side by side comparison of this and
the case where it does go through the switch. What are the big
changes?

	Andrew