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:   Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:27:34 +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

Hi Florian,
I've made a screenshot of perf top when doing the NAT throughput test
without the switch (which too doesn't work on 1000mbps as I thought,
but on ~680 mbps). What do you think about the result?

http://blackhole.sk/~kabel/tmp/a3700_nat_perf.png

Marek

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?
> 
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> > 
> > This was tested with 5.0.0-rc2 and also 4.14.
> > 
> > Thank you.
> > 
> > Marek
> >   
>