From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 827D7C169C4 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:27:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40CE820989 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:27:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz header.i=@nic.cz header.b="HSPk4JXc" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727067AbfA2O1t (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:27:49 -0500 Received: from mail.nic.cz ([217.31.204.67]:56524 "EHLO mail.nic.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725828AbfA2O1s (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:27:48 -0500 Received: from dellmb.labs.office.nic.cz (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:cac7:3539:7f1f:463]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5151162E1A; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:46 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1548772066; bh=tjWpt5DUpN2ZLQSwu/T1s3Lc5AztC/lPbK31rAwr5j8=; h=Date:From:To; b=HSPk4JXcXps04zSbOmQk7iargqsivpGTBpW6OazsJop3n/BR+Xr1R0TY7DdQ46aeJ f+CoX6PdpUKH7b4OD6YceZoxghBd6LsPmpkQiNNYEHMiY87OAl7PYgtltTM9jE6ZBC M4r4oHSiIrvihLghF5lF5L3LLOm3MfD4Udu9riD4= Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:34 +0100 From: Marek =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Beh=FAn?= To: Florian Fainelli Cc: Andrew Lunn , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Russell King Subject: Re: marvell 6190 NAT performance Message-ID: <20190129152734.5bf998ea@dellmb.labs.office.nic.cz> In-Reply-To: References: <20190124212640.43813222@nic.cz> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org 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 Marek On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 13:31:24 -0800 Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 1/24/19 12:26 PM, Marek Behun wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am encountering strange performance issue when benchmarking NAT > > performance on Armada 3720 with Marvell 88e6190 switch. > > > > Download speed (from internet, via Armada 3720 NAT, via switch to > > LAN device) is ~750mbps and the CPU running on 100% (mostly in > > ksoftirq). Upload speed is ~250mbps. > > > > When the LAN device is connected to A3720 directly (via SFP), the > > speeds are both ~1000mbps. > > OK and that presumably uses the second Ethernet MAC on the SoC right? > > > > > I realize that packing/unpacking packets with Marvell header for the > > switch takes some time, but is such a performance drop expected? > > If you run perf top/record you would be able to see that pretty > quickly, I would not think that processing of the Marvell DSA tag > would incur such a high penalty though since the packets are already > hot in D$ by the time we get to mangle them for the DSA network > devices. > > How about pure (non-NAT) IP routing? How about just bridging between > WAN and LAN? > > > > > This was tested with 5.0.0-rc2 and also 4.14. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Marek > > >