netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] nb8800 suspend/resume support

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: <71dd7987-8c43-2548-5058-51a95658da71@free.fr>
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2017 22:02:24 +0200
From:   Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
To:     Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] nb8800 suspend/resume support

On 02/08/2017 19:31, Mason wrote:

> # iperf3 -c 172.27.64.45 -u -b 950M
> Connecting to host 172.27.64.45, port 5201
> [  4] local 172.27.64.1 port 55533 connected to 172.27.64.45 port 5201
> [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Total Datagrams
> [  4]   0.00-1.00   sec   102 MBytes   858 Mbits/sec  13091  
> [  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   114 MBytes   953 Mbits/sec  14541  

114 MB in 14541 packets => 7840 bytes per packet
Is iperf3 sending jumbo frames??
In the nb8800 driver, RX_BUF_SIZE is only 1552,
how would it deal with jumbo frames... truncate?

> # iperf3 -c 172.27.64.45 -u -b 950M -l 800
> Connecting to host 172.27.64.45, port 5201
> [  4] local 172.27.64.1 port 35197 connected to 172.27.64.45 port 5201
> [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Total Datagrams
> [  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  90.6 MBytes   760 Mbits/sec  118724  
> [  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   107 MBytes   894 Mbits/sec  139718  

107 MB in 139718 packets => 766 bytes per packet
800 - 8 (UDP) - 20 (IPv4) = 772 bytes per packet
I suppose that's close enough...
772 * 139718 = 107.86 MB

I need to run the test slightly slower, to prevent
packet loss at the sender.

Perhaps -b 0 or -b 800M

Regards.