netdev - Re: marvell 6190 NAT performance

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]

Date:   Fri, 25 Jan 2019 13:09:56 +0100
From:   Marek Behún <marek.behun@....cz>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: marvell 6190 NAT performance

On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 13:31:24 -0800
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:

> On 1/24/19 12:26 PM, Marek Behun wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I am encountering strange performance issue when benchmarking NAT
> > performance on Armada 3720 with Marvell 88e6190 switch.
> > 
> > Download speed (from internet, via Armada 3720 NAT, via switch to
> > LAN device) is ~750mbps and the CPU running on 100% (mostly in
> > ksoftirq). Upload speed is ~250mbps.
> > 
> > When the LAN device is connected to A3720 directly (via SFP), the
> > speeds are both ~1000mbps.  
> 
> OK and that presumably uses the second Ethernet MAC on the SoC right?

SFP port uses the same Ethernet MAC as switch.
eth0 is used for wan, eth1 is either connected to a SFP cage or to a
switch chip.

> > 
> > I realize that packing/unpacking packets with Marvell header for the
> > switch takes some time, but is such a performance drop expected?  
> 
> If you run perf top/record you would be able to see that pretty
> quickly, I would not think that processing of the Marvell DSA tag
> would incur such a high penalty though since the packets are already
> hot in D$ by the time we get to mangle them for the DSA network
> devices.
> 
> How about pure (non-NAT) IP routing? How about just bridging between
> WAN and LAN?

I will try to do various benchmarks and send the results.

Marek