From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> To: Simon Huelck <simonmail@gmx.de> Cc: Emiliano Ingrassia <ingrassia@epigenesys.com>, Gpeppe.cavallaro@st.com, alexandre.torgue@st.com, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: stmmac / meson8b-dwmac Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 02:09:14 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAFBinCB1WUMOmaF6Wmr5HTutrgLOru5CRSnOpUUMMuVzHSa3Gg@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <3001f244-8904-1e89-9595-62a65a7b32ae@gmx.de> Hi Simon, On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 8:30 PM Simon Huelck <simonmail@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > i can confirm better performance with 4.14.29 > > - ~900 MBits with iperf2 in one way > -~ 500 - 600MBits with iperf2 in duplex in both directions > > > This wasnt the case with 4.17.9, not with 4.18, 4.19 or the 5.0 series..... I just did a small test myself on a Khadas VIM2: # iperf3 -c 192.168.1.100 Connecting to host 192.168.1.100, port 5201 [ 5] local 192.168.1.189 port 37192 connected to 192.168.1.100 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 113 MBytes 946 Mbits/sec 0 354 KBytes [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 112 MBytes 940 Mbits/sec 0 354 KBytes [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 110 MBytes 920 Mbits/sec 241 228 KBytes [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 112 MBytes 940 Mbits/sec 0 314 KBytes [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 111 MBytes 933 Mbits/sec 89 83.4 KBytes [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 110 MBytes 926 Mbits/sec 115 335 KBytes [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec 0 358 KBytes [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec 0 362 KBytes [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec 0 369 KBytes [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec 0 372 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 937 Mbits/sec 445 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.04 sec 1.09 GBytes 932 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done. (it's interesting that the sending direction has 445 retries) # iperf3 -c 192.168.1.100 -R Connecting to host 192.168.1.100, port 5201 Reverse mode, remote host 192.168.1.100 is sending [ 5] local 192.168.1.189 port 37196 connected to 192.168.1.100 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 90.9 MBytes 763 Mbits/sec [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 90.9 MBytes 762 Mbits/sec [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 90.7 MBytes 760 Mbits/sec [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 91.3 MBytes 766 Mbits/sec [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 91.1 MBytes 764 Mbits/sec [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 91.1 MBytes 765 Mbits/sec [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 90.8 MBytes 762 Mbits/sec [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 90.9 MBytes 762 Mbits/sec [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 91.0 MBytes 764 Mbits/sec [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 91.3 MBytes 766 Mbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.04 sec 911 MBytes 762 Mbits/sec 0 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 910 MBytes 763 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done. (when receiving I see no retries) for my test I used my Khadas VIM2 (as I don't have a GXBB board anymore). test setup: PC -> built-in switch in some ath79 based OpenWrt device -> VIM2. no VLANs are used revision: latest mainline, which at the time of testing is: 46c291e277f937378 ("Merge tag 'armsoc-fixes-5.0' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/soc/soc") > How can i help further ? it's good to know that 4.14 has "good" performance in your scenario can you please show the full iperf outputs for your tests (preferably on both, 4.14 and 5.0-rcX)? do you see any improvements on 5.0-rcX when not using VLANs (this is just a random guess)? Regards Martin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> To: Simon Huelck <simonmail@gmx.de> Cc: linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, alexandre.torgue@st.com, Emiliano Ingrassia <ingrassia@epigenesys.com>, Gpeppe.cavallaro@st.com Subject: Re: stmmac / meson8b-dwmac Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 02:09:14 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAFBinCB1WUMOmaF6Wmr5HTutrgLOru5CRSnOpUUMMuVzHSa3Gg@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <3001f244-8904-1e89-9595-62a65a7b32ae@gmx.de> Hi Simon, On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 8:30 PM Simon Huelck <simonmail@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > i can confirm better performance with 4.14.29 > > - ~900 MBits with iperf2 in one way > -~ 500 - 600MBits with iperf2 in duplex in both directions > > > This wasnt the case with 4.17.9, not with 4.18, 4.19 or the 5.0 series..... I just did a small test myself on a Khadas VIM2: # iperf3 -c 192.168.1.100 Connecting to host 192.168.1.100, port 5201 [ 5] local 192.168.1.189 port 37192 connected to 192.168.1.100 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 113 MBytes 946 Mbits/sec 0 354 KBytes [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 112 MBytes 940 Mbits/sec 0 354 KBytes [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 110 MBytes 920 Mbits/sec 241 228 KBytes [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 112 MBytes 940 Mbits/sec 0 314 KBytes [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 111 MBytes 933 Mbits/sec 89 83.4 KBytes [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 110 MBytes 926 Mbits/sec 115 335 KBytes [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec 0 358 KBytes [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec 0 362 KBytes [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec 0 369 KBytes [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec 0 372 KBytes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 937 Mbits/sec 445 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.04 sec 1.09 GBytes 932 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done. (it's interesting that the sending direction has 445 retries) # iperf3 -c 192.168.1.100 -R Connecting to host 192.168.1.100, port 5201 Reverse mode, remote host 192.168.1.100 is sending [ 5] local 192.168.1.189 port 37196 connected to 192.168.1.100 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 90.9 MBytes 763 Mbits/sec [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 90.9 MBytes 762 Mbits/sec [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 90.7 MBytes 760 Mbits/sec [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 91.3 MBytes 766 Mbits/sec [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 91.1 MBytes 764 Mbits/sec [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 91.1 MBytes 765 Mbits/sec [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 90.8 MBytes 762 Mbits/sec [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 90.9 MBytes 762 Mbits/sec [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 91.0 MBytes 764 Mbits/sec [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 91.3 MBytes 766 Mbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.04 sec 911 MBytes 762 Mbits/sec 0 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 910 MBytes 763 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done. (when receiving I see no retries) for my test I used my Khadas VIM2 (as I don't have a GXBB board anymore). test setup: PC -> built-in switch in some ath79 based OpenWrt device -> VIM2. no VLANs are used revision: latest mainline, which at the time of testing is: 46c291e277f937378 ("Merge tag 'armsoc-fixes-5.0' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/soc/soc") > How can i help further ? it's good to know that 4.14 has "good" performance in your scenario can you please show the full iperf outputs for your tests (preferably on both, 4.14 and 5.0-rcX)? do you see any improvements on 5.0-rcX when not using VLANs (this is just a random guess)? Regards Martin _______________________________________________ linux-amlogic mailing list linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-09 1:09 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <a38e643c-ed9f-c306-cc95-84f70ebc1f10@gmx.de> [not found] ` <CAFBinCDebPOsmrhSXecx48nGWHh7g_OGPbr1Y0M+n_v9Ht91ew@mail.gmail.com> 2019-01-17 21:23 ` stmmac / meson8b-dwmac Simon Huelck 2019-01-17 21:23 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-04 14:34 ` Martin Blumenstingl 2019-02-04 14:34 ` Martin Blumenstingl 2019-02-06 10:36 ` Emiliano Ingrassia 2019-02-06 10:36 ` Emiliano Ingrassia 2019-02-06 18:04 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-06 18:04 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-06 21:21 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-06 21:21 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-07 19:30 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-07 19:30 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-09 1:09 ` Martin Blumenstingl [this message] 2019-02-09 1:09 ` Martin Blumenstingl 2019-02-11 13:44 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-11 13:44 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-14 7:21 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-14 7:21 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-17 14:48 ` Martin Blumenstingl 2019-02-17 14:48 ` Martin Blumenstingl 2019-02-17 19:13 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-17 19:13 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 8:42 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 8:42 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 8:45 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 8:45 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 12:33 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 12:33 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 12:41 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 12:41 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 13:02 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 13:02 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 15:29 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 15:29 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 15:31 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 15:31 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 15:53 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 15:53 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 16:26 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 16:26 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 16:40 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 16:40 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 16:43 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 16:43 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 16:51 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 16:51 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 17:05 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 17:05 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-18 18:05 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 18:05 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-19 8:47 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-19 8:47 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-19 19:41 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-19 19:41 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-21 14:21 ` Jerome Brunet 2019-02-21 14:21 ` Jerome Brunet 2019-02-21 17:27 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-21 17:27 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-21 17:46 ` Jerome Brunet 2019-02-21 17:46 ` Jerome Brunet 2019-02-21 19:34 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-21 19:34 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-22 17:21 ` Anand Moon 2019-02-22 17:21 ` Anand Moon 2019-02-24 15:00 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-24 15:00 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-24 15:02 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-24 15:02 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-24 19:42 ` Sebastian Gottschall 2019-02-24 19:42 ` Sebastian Gottschall 2019-02-24 20:34 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-24 20:34 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-27 11:09 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-27 11:09 ` Jose Abreu 2019-02-27 19:02 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-27 19:02 ` Simon Huelck 2019-03-01 9:23 ` Jose Abreu 2019-03-01 9:23 ` Jose Abreu 2019-03-05 9:55 ` Simon Huelck 2019-03-05 9:55 ` Simon Huelck 2019-03-06 11:35 ` Simon Huelck 2019-03-06 11:35 ` Simon Huelck 2019-03-06 11:45 ` Simon Huelck 2019-03-06 11:45 ` Simon Huelck 2019-05-11 14:53 ` Simon Huelck 2019-05-11 14:53 ` Simon Huelck 2019-05-13 9:07 ` Jose Abreu 2019-05-13 9:07 ` Jose Abreu 2019-05-22 12:48 ` Simon Huelck 2019-05-22 12:48 ` Simon Huelck 2019-05-22 14:02 ` Neil Armstrong 2019-05-22 14:02 ` Neil Armstrong 2019-02-27 21:03 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-27 21:03 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 17:05 ` Simon Huelck 2019-02-18 17:05 ` Simon Huelck
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=CAFBinCB1WUMOmaF6Wmr5HTutrgLOru5CRSnOpUUMMuVzHSa3Gg@mail.gmail.com \ --to=martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com \ --cc=Gpeppe.cavallaro@st.com \ --cc=alexandre.torgue@st.com \ --cc=ingrassia@epigenesys.com \ --cc=linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=simonmail@gmx.de \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.