netdev - Re: [net-next, v2, 1/2] net: stmmac: Rework coalesce timer and fix multi-queue races

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: <b31443a4-92d6-3d4c-000b-7bc595228473@synopsys.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 15:25:52 +0100
From:   Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
To:     Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
        "Giuseppe Cavallaro" <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
Subject: Re: [net-next, v2, 1/2] net: stmmac: Rework coalesce timer and fix
 multi-queue races

Hi Neil,

On 12-09-2018 14:50, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> Hi Jose,
>
> On 11/09/2018 10:17, Jose Abreu wrote:
>> On 10-09-2018 19:15, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> RX is still ok but now TX fails almost immediately...
>>>
>>> With 100ms report :
>>>
>>> $ iperf3 -c 192.168.1.47 -t 0 -p 5202 -R -i 0.1
>>> Connecting to host 192.168.1.47, port 5202
>>> Reverse mode, remote host 192.168.1.47 is sending
>>> [  4] local 192.168.1.45 port 45900 connected to 192.168.1.47 port 5202
>>> [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
>>> [  4]   0.00-0.10   sec  10.9 MBytes   913 Mbits/sec
>>> [  4]   0.10-0.20   sec  11.0 MBytes   923 Mbits/sec
>>> [  4]   0.20-0.30   sec  6.34 MBytes   532 Mbits/sec
>>> [  4]   0.30-0.40   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec
>>> [  4]   0.40-0.50   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec
>>> [  4]   0.50-0.60   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec
>>> [  4]   0.60-0.70   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec
>>> [  4]   0.70-0.80   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec
>>> [  4]   0.80-0.90   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec
>>> [  4]   0.90-1.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec
>>> [  4]   1.00-1.10   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec
>>> ^C[  4]   1.10-1.10   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
>>> [  4]   0.00-1.10   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  sender
>>> [  4]   0.00-1.10   sec  28.2 MBytes   214 Mbits/sec                  receiver
>>> iperf3: interrupt - the client has terminated
>>>
>>> Neil
>> Ok, here goes another incremental patch. If this doesn't work can
>> you please send me a link to the spec of the board you are using ?
> Sorry for the delay...
>
> Not better, sorry.
>
> $ iperf3 -c 10.1.3.201 -p 5202 -R -t 0
> Connecting to host 10.1.3.201, port 5202
> Reverse mode, remote host 10.1.3.201 is sending
> [  4] local 10.1.2.12 port 60612 connected to 10.1.3.201 port 5202
> [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
> [  4]   0.00-1.00   sec   110 MBytes   920 Mbits/sec
> [  4]   1.00-2.00   sec   110 MBytes   926 Mbits/sec
> [  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  1.94 MBytes  16.3 Mbits/sec
> [  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec
> ^C[  4]   4.00-4.76   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> [ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
> [  4]   0.00-4.76   sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  sender
> [  4]   0.00-4.76   sec   222 MBytes   391 Mbits/sec                  receiver
> iperf3: interrupt - the client has terminated
>
> The board is the Amlogic S400 with the A113D SoC, sorry there is no public spec for this board and for this SoC.

Thanks for testing. I will send a new version with major
differences, if you could validate it it would be great.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Jose Miguel Abreu

>
> Neil
>
>> Thanks and Best Regards,
>> Jose Miguel Abreu
>>