Message-ID: <4820BA72.3090903@hp.com>
Date:	Tue, 06 May 2008 13:07:14 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	avorontsov@...mvista.com
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	Andy Fleming <afleming@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] gianfar: low gigabit throughput

Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Down here few question regarding networking throughput, I would
> appreciate any thoughts or ideas.
> 
> On the MPC8315E-RDB board (CPU at 400MHz, CSB at 133 MHz) I'm observing
> relatively low TCP throughput using gianfar driver...

What is the "target" of the test - is it another of those boards, or 
something else?

> 
> The maximum value I've seen with the current kernels is 142 Mb/s of TCP
> and 354 Mb/s of UDP (NAPI and interrupts coalescing enabled):
> 
>   root@b1:~# netperf -l 10 -H 10.0.1.1 -t TCP_STREAM -- -m 32768 -s 157344 -S 157344
>   TCP STREAM TEST to 10.0.1.1
>   #Cpu utilization 0.10
>   Recv   Send    Send
>   Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
>   Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
>   bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec
> 
>   206848 212992  32768    10.00     142.40
> 
>   root@b1:~# netperf -l 10 -H 10.0.1.1 -t UDP_STREAM -- -m 32768 -s 157344 -S 157344
>   UDP UNIDIRECTIONAL SEND TEST to 10.0.1.1
>   #Cpu utilization 100.00
>   Socket  Message  Elapsed      Messages
>   Size    Size     Time         Okay Errors   Throughput
>   bytes   bytes    secs            #      #   10^6bits/sec
> 
>   212992   32768   10.00       13539      0     354.84
>   206848           10.00       13539            354.84
> 

I have _got_ to make CPU utilization enabled by default one of these 
days :)  At least for mechanisms which don't require calibration.

> Is this normal?

Does gianfar do TSO?  If not, what happens when you tell UDP_STREAM to 
send 1472 byte messages to bypass IP fragmentation?

While stock netperf won't report what the socket buffer size becomes 
when you allow autotuning to rear its head, you can take the top of 
trunk and enable the "omni" tests (./configure --enable-omni) and those 
versions of *_STREAM etc can report what the socket buffer size was at 
the beginning and at the end of the test. You can let the stack autotune 
and see if anything changes there.  You can do the same with stock 
netperf, just it will only report the initial socket buffer sizes...

> netperf running in loopback gives me 329 Mb/s of TCP throughput:
> 
>   root@b1:~# netperf -l 10 -H 127.0.0.1 -t TCP_STREAM -- -m 32768 -s 157344 -S 157344
>   TCP STREAM TEST to 127.0.0.1
>   #Cpu utilization 100.00
>   #Cpu utilization 100.00
>   Recv   Send    Send
>   Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
>   Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
>   bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec
> 
>   212992 212992  32768    10.00     329.60
> 
> 
> May I consider this as a something that is close to the Linux'
> theoretical maximum for this setup? Or this isn't reliable test?

I'm always leery of using a loopback number.  It excercises both send 
and receive at the same time, but without the driver.  Also, lo tends to 
have a much larger MTU than a "standard" NIC and if that NIC doesn't to 
TSO and LRO that can be a big difference in the number of times up and 
down the stack per KB transferred.

> I can compare with teh MPC8377E-RDB (very similar board - exactly the same
> ethernet phy, the same drivers are used, i.e. everything is the same from
> the ethernet stand point), but running at 666 MHz, CSB at 333MHz:
> 
>          |CPU MHz|BUS MHz|UDP Mb/s|TCP Mb/s|
>   ------------------------------------------
>   MPC8377|    666|    333|     646|     264|
>   MPC8315|    400|    133|     354|     142|
>   ------------------------------------------
>   RATIO  |    1.6|    2.5|     1.8|     1.8|
> 
> It seems that things are really dependant on the CPU/CSB speed.

What is the nature of the DMA stream between the two tests?  I find it 
interesting that the TCP Mb/s went up by more than the CPU MHz and 
wonder how much the Bus MHz came into play there - perhaps there were 
more DMA's to setup or across a broader memory footprint for TCP than 
for UDP.

> 
> I've tried to tune gianfar driver in various ways... and it gave
> some positive results with this patch:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/gianfar.h b/drivers/net/gianfar.h
> index fd487be..b5943f9 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/gianfar.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/gianfar.h
> @@ -123,8 +123,8 @@ extern const char gfar_driver_version[];
>  #define GFAR_10_TIME    25600
>  
>  #define DEFAULT_TX_COALESCE 1
> -#define DEFAULT_TXCOUNT	16
> -#define DEFAULT_TXTIME	21
> +#define DEFAULT_TXCOUNT	80
> +#define DEFAULT_TXTIME	105
>  
>  #define DEFAULT_RXTIME	21

No ethtool coalescing tuning support for gianfar?-)

> Basically this raises the tx interrupts coalescing threshold (raising
> it more didn't help, as well as didn't help raising rx thresholds).
> Now:
> 
> root@b1:~# netperf -l 3 -H 10.0.1.1 -t TCP_STREAM -- -m 32768 -s 157344 -S 157344
> TCP STREAM TEST to 10.0.1.1
> #Cpu utilization 100.00
> Recv   Send    Send
> Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
> Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
> bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec
> 
> 206848 212992  32768    3.00      163.04
> 
> 
> That is +21 Mb/s (14% up). Not fantastic, but good anyway.
> 
> As expected, the latency increased too:
> 
> Before the patch:
> 
> --- 10.0.1.1 ping statistics ---
> 20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 18997ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.108/0.124/0.173/0.022 ms
> 
> After:
> 
> --- 10.0.1.1 ping statistics ---
> 22 packets transmitted, 22 received, 0% packet loss, time 20997ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.158/0.167/0.182/0.004 ms
> 
> 
> 34% up... heh. Should we sacrifice the latency in favour of throughput?
> Is 34% latency growth bad thing? What is worse, lose 21 Mb/s or 34% of
> latency? ;-)

Well, I'm not always fond of that sort of trade-off:

ftp://ftp.cup.hp.com/dist/networking/briefs/

there should be a nic latency vs tput writeup there.

> 
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> p.s. Btw, the patch above helps even better on the on the -rt kernels,
> since on the -rt kernels the throughput is near 100 Mb/s, with the
> patch the throughput is close to 140 Mb/s.
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists