Re: stmmac / meson8b-dwmac

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