netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] r8152: add RTL8152_EARLY_AGG_TIMEOUT

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6DC810@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:28:12 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Hayes Wang' <hayeswang@...ltek.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	"nic_swsd@...ltek.com" <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] r8152: add
 RTL8152_EARLY_AGG_TIMEOUT_SUPER

From: Hayes Wang
> For slow CPU, the frequent bulk transfer would cause poor throughput.
> One solution is to increase the timeout of the aggregation. It let
> the hw could complete the bulk transfer later and fill more packets
> into the buffer. Besides, it could reduce the frequency of the bulk
> transfer efficiently and improve the performance.
> 
> However, the optimization value of the timeout depends on the
> capability of the hardware, especially the CPU. For example, according
> to the experiment, the timeout 164 us is better than the default
> value for the chromebook with the ARM CPU.

The best value probably depends on the workload as well as the
cpu speed.
I wonder if a sane algorithm for dynamically setting this value exists.
It really needs a CBU (crystal ball unit), but working ones are
difficult to come by.

Passing the buck to the 'user' is rather a cop-out (but we all do it).

> Now add RTL8152_EARLY_AGG_TIMEOUT_SUPER to let someone could choose
> desired timeout value if he wants to get the best performance.
...
>  /* USB_RX_EARLY_AGG */
> -#define EARLY_AGG_SUPPER	0x0e832981
> +#define EARLY_AGG_SUPER	((((rx_buf_sz - 1522) / 4) << 16) | \
> +	(u32)(CONFIG_RTL8152_EARLY_AGG_TIMEOUT_SUPER <= 0 ? 0x2981 : \
> +	((CONFIG_RTL8152_EARLY_AGG_TIMEOUT_SUPER * 125) < 0xffff ? \
> +	CONFIG_RTL8152_EARLY_AGG_TIMEOUT_SUPER * 125 : 0xffff)))

The 0x2981 would be better written as (85 * 125).
But maybe replace with something like:
	min((CONFIG_RTL8152_EARLY_AGG_TIMEOUT_SUPER <= 0 ? 85 :
		CONFIG_RTL8152_EARLY_AGG_TIMEOUT_SUPER) * 125u, 0xffffu)

	David



--
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