[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5c305629-0b61-88e5-5c48-4616cd687d9f@st.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:51:00 +0100
From: Giuseppe CAVALLARO <peppe.cavallaro@...com>
To: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>
CC: <alexandre.torgue@...com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: stmmac: Performance regression after commit aff3d9eff843 "net:
stmmac: enable multiple buffers"
On 3/23/2017 11:48 AM, Giuseppe CAVALLARO wrote:
> Hello
>
> On 3/23/2017 11:20 AM, Corentin Labbe wrote:
>>> I have a 4.21 QoS Core with 4 RX + 4 TX and detected no regression.
>>> >Could you please share the iperf cmds you are using in order for me
>>> to reproduce
>>> >in my side?
>
> Joao, you have a really powerful HW integration with multiple channels
> for both RX and TX.
> Often this is not the same for other setup where, usually just a DMA0
> is present or, sometime, there
> is just one RX extra channel.
>
> My question is, what happens on this kind of configurations? Are we
> still guarantying the best performances?
>
> Also we have to guarantee, that the TSO and SG are always working.
> Another point is the buffer sizes that
> can be different among platforms.
>
> The problem below reported by Corentin push me to think that there is
> a bug, so we should
> understand when this has been introduced and if likely fixed by some
> configuration we are
> not take care right now.
>
> ndesc_get_rx_status: Oversized frame spanned multiple buffers"
I wonder if this could be easily triggered by getting a big file via
FTP. So not properly related on performance benchs
peppe
>
>
> Best Regards
> Peppe
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists