On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 05:52:57PM +0200, André Schwarz wrote: > Anton, >
Much thanks for the information! > we've just built a digital GigEVision camera based on a MPC8343 running > at 266/400 csb/core speed. > > Transmission is done from a kernel module that allocates skb into which > the image data is DMA'd by an external PCI master. > As soon as the image data is complete all buffers are sent out via > dev->hard_start_xmit ... Ah. So no userspace and packet generation expenses.. I see. This should be definitely faster than netperf. But generally this fits into the picture: MPC8315 running at 266 CSB would probably give better UDP througput (300 Mb/s currenty). > Bandwidth is currently 1.3MPixel @ 50Hz which give 65MBytes/sec > (~520MBit/s). > Of course it's UDP _without_ checksumming .... > > Actually I have no sensor available that gives higher bandwidth ... but > having a look at transmission time I'm sure the MPC8343 can easily go up > to +800MBit. > > > Obviously your cpu time is consumed on a higher level. > > Cheers, > André > > > Anton Vorontsov wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Down here few question regarding networking throughput, I would >> appreciate any thoughts or ideas. >> >> On the MPC8315E-RDB board (CPU at 400MHz, CSB at 133 MHz) I'm observing >> relatively low TCP throughput using gianfar driver... >> >> The maximum value I've seen with the current kernels is 142 Mb/s of TCP >> and 354 Mb/s of UDP (NAPI and interrupts coalescing enabled): >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# netperf -l 10 -H 10.0.1.1 -t TCP_STREAM -- -m 32768 >> -s 157344 -S 157344 >> TCP STREAM TEST to 10.0.1.1 >> #Cpu utilization 0.10 >> Recv Send Send >> Socket Socket Message Elapsed >> Size Size Size Time Throughput >> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec >> >> 206848 212992 32768 10.00 142.40 >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# netperf -l 10 -H 10.0.1.1 -t UDP_STREAM -- -m 32768 >> -s 157344 -S 157344 >> UDP UNIDIRECTIONAL SEND TEST to 10.0.1.1 >> #Cpu utilization 100.00 >> Socket Message Elapsed Messages >> Size Size Time Okay Errors Throughput >> bytes bytes secs # # 10^6bits/sec >> >> 212992 32768 10.00 13539 0 354.84 >> 206848 10.00 13539 354.84 >> >> >> Is this normal? >> >> netperf running in loopback gives me 329 Mb/s of TCP throughput: >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# netperf -l 10 -H 127.0.0.1 -t TCP_STREAM -- -m 32768 >> -s 157344 -S 157344 >> TCP STREAM TEST to 127.0.0.1 >> #Cpu utilization 100.00 >> #Cpu utilization 100.00 >> Recv Send Send >> Socket Socket Message Elapsed >> Size Size Size Time Throughput >> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec >> >> 212992 212992 32768 10.00 329.60 >> >> >> May I consider this as a something that is close to the Linux' >> theoretical maximum for this setup? Or this isn't reliable test? >> >> >> I can compare with teh MPC8377E-RDB (very similar board - exactly the same >> ethernet phy, the same drivers are used, i.e. everything is the same from >> the ethernet stand point), but running at 666 MHz, CSB at 333MHz: >> >> |CPU MHz|BUS MHz|UDP Mb/s|TCP Mb/s| >> ------------------------------------------ >> MPC8377| 666| 333| 646| 264| >> MPC8315| 400| 133| 354| 142| >> ------------------------------------------ >> RATIO | 1.6| 2.5| 1.8| 1.8| >> >> It seems that things are really dependant on the CPU/CSB speed. >> >> I've tried to tune gianfar driver in various ways... and it gave >> some positive results with this patch: >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/gianfar.h b/drivers/net/gianfar.h >> index fd487be..b5943f9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/gianfar.h >> +++ b/drivers/net/gianfar.h >> @@ -123,8 +123,8 @@ extern const char gfar_driver_version[]; >> #define GFAR_10_TIME 25600 >> #define DEFAULT_TX_COALESCE 1 >> -#define DEFAULT_TXCOUNT 16 >> -#define DEFAULT_TXTIME 21 >> +#define DEFAULT_TXCOUNT 80 >> +#define DEFAULT_TXTIME 105 >> #define DEFAULT_RXTIME 21 >> >> >> Basically this raises the tx interrupts coalescing threshold (raising >> it more didn't help, as well as didn't help raising rx thresholds). >> Now: >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# netperf -l 3 -H 10.0.1.1 -t TCP_STREAM -- -m 32768 -s >> 157344 -S 157344 >> TCP STREAM TEST to 10.0.1.1 >> #Cpu utilization 100.00 >> Recv Send Send >> Socket Socket Message Elapsed >> Size Size Size Time Throughput >> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec >> >> 206848 212992 32768 3.00 163.04 >> >> >> That is +21 Mb/s (14% up). Not fantastic, but good anyway. >> >> As expected, the latency increased too: >> >> Before the patch: >> >> --- 10.0.1.1 ping statistics --- >> 20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 18997ms >> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.108/0.124/0.173/0.022 ms >> >> After: >> >> --- 10.0.1.1 ping statistics --- >> 22 packets transmitted, 22 received, 0% packet loss, time 20997ms >> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.158/0.167/0.182/0.004 ms >> >> >> 34% up... heh. Should we sacrifice the latency in favour of throughput? >> Is 34% latency growth bad thing? What is worse, lose 21 Mb/s or 34% of >> latency? ;-) >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> p.s. Btw, the patch above helps even better on the on the -rt kernels, >> since on the -rt kernels the throughput is near 100 Mb/s, with the >> patch the throughput is close to 140 Mb/s. >> >> > > > MATRIX VISION GmbH, Talstraße 16, DE-71570 Oppenweiler - Registergericht: > Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 271090 > Geschäftsführer: Gerhard Thullner, Werner Armingeon, Uwe Furtner -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
