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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 14:52:05 +0200
From:   Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
To:     Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>
Cc:     NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: i.MX8MM Ethernet TX Bandwidth Fluctuations

Hi Adam,

On 06.05.21 21:20, Adam Ford wrote:
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 9:51 AM Frieder Schrempf
> <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> we observed some weird phenomenon with the Ethernet on our i.MX8M-Mini boards. It happens quite often that the measured bandwidth in TX direction drops from its expected/nominal value to something like 50% (for 100M) or ~67% (for 1G) connections.
>>
>> So far we reproduced this with two different hardware designs using two different PHYs (RGMII VSC8531 and RMII KSZ8081), two different kernel versions (v5.4 and v5.10) and link speeds of 100M and 1G.
>>
>> To measure the throughput we simply run iperf3 on the target (with a short p2p connection to the host PC) like this:
>>
>>         iperf3 -c 192.168.1.10 --bidir
>>
>> But even something more simple like this can be used to get the info (with 'nc -l -p 1122 > /dev/null' running on the host):
>>
>>         dd if=/dev/zero bs=10M count=1 | nc 192.168.1.10 1122
>>
>> The results fluctuate between each test run and are sometimes 'good' (e.g. ~90 MBit/s for 100M link) and sometimes 'bad' (e.g. ~45 MBit/s for 100M link).
>> There is nothing else running on the system in parallel. Some more info is also available in this post: [1].
>>
>> If there's anyone around who has an idea on what might be the reason for this, please let me know!
>> Or maybe someone would be willing to do a quick test on his own hardware. That would also be highly appreciated!
> 
> I have seen a similar regression on linux-next on both Mini and Nano.
> I thought I broke something, but it returned to normal after a reboot.
>   However, with a 1Gb connection, I was running at ~450 Mbs which is
> consistent with what you were seeing with a 100Mb link.

Thanks for your response. If you say "regression" does this mean that you had some previous version where this issue didn't occur? As for me, I can see it on 5.4 and 5.10, but I didn't try it with anything else so far.

Best regards
Frieder

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ