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=-6.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, 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 D4DE9C169C4 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 01:09:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857F1217D8 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 01:09:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com header.i=@googlemail.com header.b="JZAau44L" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726663AbfBIBJ1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 20:09:27 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f54.google.com ([209.85.210.54]:37700 "EHLO mail-ot1-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726244AbfBIBJ1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 20:09:27 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f54.google.com with SMTP id s13so9031347otq.4 for ; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 17:09:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=t2RwZ/qvtTUCZARVCn/TTpLSr+Oj4xKFZV2RCB893f4=; b=JZAau44LYlLXZch16144NNHraeJ9Sq8/uqzdL7jZ9THZ9AGYUKMg3G/7sOSRKd5j7C fJmkSgwwSWvCQ5Fnz0CkXFjU9cUym7sxljUriLt7AHx79LukDT9C1bzYpR/SfMDZ4EIK Q6zy4R2E1X1oCNP+o4aGVJmgTPWJhq8YekioBZQbsxRVu1avn1WHQ58TMD9D/daPrvyu cJRZpLrPnXnmb7Gl4kkt6ZXcl+zGQaJnGmHbL9AK5nFKPAvPCSafekonAOcdFYr41YUc qEEb6v5thAkODCDyNOIFcU4+Ds+yTEFGYjRhi1jjwQzROxD8t9Sj13IhLYCdv4TMQSZS om9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=t2RwZ/qvtTUCZARVCn/TTpLSr+Oj4xKFZV2RCB893f4=; b=rjIrzmwqdvFhm2SdVKOuIazBuWY2oA4oSUVyPHWZC47z55wVv/PNbXonObjD71IWcC CL9HvVx8f0dYryg/uYnQ2XucouFzWTrBdQ/e7OlQYr6TPO9nS5N6xe4Tt9j+3f8Dhnfg YFkVHQ0BAvyA4N+Vx22G4Zjn9uAdYkZLRpUQtUKh6hkXNMMizJ3EN6DzuUatHVxxU4iR 2n8/DpK4S+Lgrd8COT+q6i62Tu0j7EIMOGdGU0o/LTvvvOhSwMF73DnM6a0cUtoH+DEw jqVb3gjSHIWZqW/psy9mww4l2GRfT6ehNymeRe2i5PUiXG3uOGtwo/eqbEbTD6bL2WGf mKuQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZ5HDwCp7O36qO0ayTTx7UPPfWSKD5ay7nC5kBeIToparGfEmpT +fsE5iqtzsH0cDFBneQPIYvNNgSa9hU0IcpdEMg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZcNgBrbFj9oCAwgk4xum4kvfHgJwWWzX3Shw8xha0nObB79FAMN46+sPZnNsqWbj2vOwEBK9EsZHA8ruav2n4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:2010:: with SMTP id e16mr15194751otp.86.1549674565848; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 17:09:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190206103645.GA2482@ingrassia.epigenesys.com> <3001f244-8904-1e89-9595-62a65a7b32ae@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <3001f244-8904-1e89-9595-62a65a7b32ae@gmx.de> From: Martin Blumenstingl Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 02:09:14 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: stmmac / meson8b-dwmac To: Simon Huelck Cc: Emiliano Ingrassia , Gpeppe.cavallaro@st.com, alexandre.torgue@st.com, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Hi Simon, On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 8:30 PM Simon Huelck 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