| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <0afcc48493b941ffab991d52b7c97a0d@BLUPR03MB373.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 02:44:40 +0000 From: "fugang.duan@...escale.com" <fugang.duan@...escale.com> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Hector Palacios <hector.palacios@...i.com> CC: Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Fabio.Estevam@...escale.com" <Fabio.Estevam@...escale.com>, "shawn.guo@...aro.org" <shawn.guo@...aro.org>, "l.stach@...gutronix.de" <l.stach@...gutronix.de>, "Frank.Li@...escale.com" <Frank.Li@...escale.com>, "bhutchings@...arflare.com" <bhutchings@...arflare.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: RE: FEC performance degradation with certain packet sizes From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Data: Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:39 AM >To: Hector Palacios >Cc: Marek Vasut; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Estevam Fabio-R49496; >shawn.guo@...aro.org; l.stach@...gutronix.de; Li Frank-B20596; Duan Fugang- >B38611; bhutchings@...arflare.com; davem@...emloft.net >Subject: Re: FEC performance degradation with certain packet sizes > >On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 17:43 +0100, Hector Palacios wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'm resending this thread (reworded the subject) with additional people on CC. >> I found the issue happens also with auto-negotiated link and is reproducible >on the >> i.MX6 as well as on the i.MX28. It looks like a problem with the fec driver. >> >> Steps to reproduce: >> On the target: >> netpipe >> On the host: >> netpipe -h <target_ip> -n 5 >> >> At certain packet sizes (starting always at 1533 bytes), the performance >drops >> dramatically: >> >> On i.MX28: >> [...] >> 42: 771 bytes 5 times --> 19.78 Mbps in 297.41 usec >> 43: 1021 bytes 5 times --> 23.29 Mbps in 334.41 usec >> 44: 1024 bytes 5 times --> 23.61 Mbps in 330.90 usec >> 45: 1027 bytes 5 times --> 23.43 Mbps in 334.41 usec >> 46: 1533 bytes 5 times --> 0.13 Mbps in 88817.49 usec >> 47: 1536 bytes 5 times --> 0.06 Mbps in 189914.91 usec >> 48: 1539 bytes 5 times --> 0.06 Mbps in 204917.19 usec >> 49: 2045 bytes 5 times --> 0.07 Mbps in 210931.79 usec >> 50: 2048 bytes 5 times --> 0.07 Mbps in 210919.10 usec >> 51: 2051 bytes 5 times --> 0.07 Mbps in 212915.71 usec >> 52: 3069 bytes 5 times --> 35.42 Mbps in 661.01 usec >> 53: 3072 bytes 5 times --> 35.57 Mbps in 659.00 usec >> 54: 3075 bytes 5 times --> 35.42 Mbps in 662.29 usec >> 55: 4093 bytes 5 times --> 40.03 Mbps in 780.19 usec >> 56: 4096 bytes 5 times --> 40.75 Mbps in 766.79 usec >> 57: 4099 bytes 5 times --> 40.64 Mbps in 769.49 usec >> 58: 6141 bytes 5 times --> 3.08 Mbps in 15187.90 usec >> 59: 6144 bytes 5 times --> 2.94 Mbps in 15928.19 usec >> 60: 6147 bytes 5 times --> 5.57 Mbps in 8418.91 usec >> 61: 8189 bytes 5 times --> 1.34 Mbps in 46574.90 usec >> 62: 8192 bytes 5 times --> 2.17 Mbps in 28781.99 usec >> 63: 8195 bytes 5 times --> 1.36 Mbps in 45923.69 usec >> 64: 12285 bytes 5 times --> 51.78 Mbps in 1810.21 usec >> 65: 12288 bytes 5 times --> 50.46 Mbps in 1857.81 usec >> 66: 12291 bytes 5 times --> 54.01 Mbps in 1736.21 usec >> 67: 16381 bytes 5 times --> 55.86 Mbps in 2237.50 usec >> 68: 16384 bytes 5 times --> 56.93 Mbps in 2195.79 usec >> 69: 16387 bytes 5 times --> 35.62 Mbps in 3509.60 usec >> 70: 24573 bytes 5 times --> 7.19 Mbps in 26075.60 usec >> 71: 24576 bytes 5 times --> 58.36 Mbps in 3212.59 usec >> 72: 24579 bytes 5 times --> 7.92 Mbps in 23678.90 usec >> 73: 32765 bytes 5 times --> 58.14 Mbps in 4299.79 usec >> 74: 32768 bytes 5 times --> 5.34 Mbps in 46810.20 usec >> 75: 32771 bytes 5 times --> 41.51 Mbps in 6023.21 usec >> 76: 49149 bytes 5 times --> 49.62 Mbps in 7557.20 usec >> 77: 49152 bytes 5 times --> 48.82 Mbps in 7681.11 usec >> >> On i.MX6: >> [...] >> 42: 771 bytes 5 times --> 16.21 Mbps in 362.91 usec >> 43: 1021 bytes 5 times --> 17.97 Mbps in 433.51 usec >> 44: 1024 bytes 5 times --> 18.19 Mbps in 429.40 usec >> 45: 1027 bytes 5 times --> 18.16 Mbps in 431.41 usec >> 46: 1533 bytes 5 times --> 2.35 Mbps in 4970.11 usec >> 47: 1536 bytes 5 times --> 2.36 Mbps in 4959.91 usec >> 48: 1539 bytes 5 times --> 2.37 Mbps in 4959.20 usec >> 49: 2045 bytes 5 times --> 3.14 Mbps in 4972.31 usec >> 50: 2048 bytes 5 times --> 3.15 Mbps in 4959.50 usec >> 51: 2051 bytes 5 times --> 3.15 Mbps in 4960.01 usec >> 52: 3069 bytes 5 times --> 4.70 Mbps in 4984.19 usec >> 53: 3072 bytes 5 times --> 4.73 Mbps in 4960.10 usec >> 54: 3075 bytes 5 times --> 4.73 Mbps in 4957.81 usec >> 55: 4093 bytes 5 times --> 6.29 Mbps in 4966.71 usec >> 56: 4096 bytes 5 times --> 6.30 Mbps in 4962.00 usec >> 57: 4099 bytes 5 times --> 6.31 Mbps in 4957.71 usec >> 58: 6141 bytes 5 times --> 49.25 Mbps in 951.40 usec >> 59: 6144 bytes 5 times --> 49.23 Mbps in 952.21 usec >> 60: 6147 bytes 5 times --> 49.18 Mbps in 953.69 usec >> >> Does anyone have any clue about where the problem might be? > >What is the driver in use ? > >Have you tried disabling tso/gso ? > >ethtool -k eth0 > >ethtool -K eth0 tso off gso off > Enet IP don't support tso feature. I will reproduce the issue in imx6q/dl sd platform, and analyze the issue. Previous test, we don't use netpipe tool test ethernet performance. Thanks, Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists