From: Maximilian Engelhardt <maxi@daemonizer.de>
To: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
Gary Zambrano <zambrano@broadcom.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 00:15:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705280016.02776.maxi@daemonizer.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705272313.33129.mb@bu3sch.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3445 bytes --]
On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 27 May 2007 21:25:17 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > 2.6.21.1:
> > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 58414 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> > [ 5] 0.0-60.6 sec 1.13 MBytes 157 Kbits/sec
> > [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 57837
> > [ 4] 0.0-63.1 sec 2.82 MBytes 375 Kbits/sec
> >
> > 2.6.22-rc3:
> > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46557 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> > [ 5] 0.0-60.4 sec 58.9 MBytes 8.18 Mbits/sec
> > [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 51633
> > [ 4] 0.0-63.1 sec 7.27 MBytes 967 Kbits/sec
>
> This is the diff between these two kernels.
> I'm not sure why you see a much better TX throughput here.
>
> Can you re-check to make sure it's not just some test-jitter?
>
2.6.21.1:
[ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 54423 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
[ 5] 0.0-60.3 sec 3.06 MBytes 426 Kbits/sec
[ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 41053
[ 4] 0.0-163.0 sec 130 MBytes 6.67 Mbits/sec
2.6.22-rc3:
[ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46002 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
[ 5] 0.0-61.5 sec 84.0 MBytes 11.5 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 44379
[ 4] 0.0-93.8 sec 30.6 MBytes 2.74 Mbits/sec
For TX the iperf server reports the same values as the client (all values are
from the client) but for RX they are differen:
2.6.21.1: (iperf server log):
[ 5] local 192.168.1.1 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 54423
[ 5] 0.0-60.5 sec 3.06 MBytes 425 Kbits/sec
[ 5] local 192.168.1.1 port 41053 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 5001
[ 5] 0.0-63.1 sec 130 MBytes 17.2 Mbits/sec
2.6.22-rc3 (iperf server log):
[ 4] local 192.168.1.1 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 46002
[ 4] 0.0-61.6 sec 84.0 MBytes 11.5 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 192.168.1.1 port 44379 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 5001
[ 4] 0.0-63.3 sec 30.6 MBytes 4.06 Mbits/sec
I have no idea how iperf internally works and what can cause such different
results here.
>
> --- linux-2.6.21.1/drivers/net/b44.c 2007-05-27 22:58:01.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.22-rc3/drivers/net/b44.c 2007-05-27 23:01:44.000000000 +0200
> @@ -825,12 +825,11 @@
> if (copy_skb == NULL)
> goto drop_it_no_recycle;
>
> - copy_skb->dev = bp->dev;
> skb_reserve(copy_skb, 2);
> skb_put(copy_skb, len);
> /* DMA sync done above, copy just the actual packet
> */ - memcpy(copy_skb->data, skb->data+bp->rx_offset,
> len); -
> + skb_copy_from_linear_data_offset(skb,
> bp->rx_offset, +
> copy_skb->data, len); skb = copy_skb;
> }
> skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_NONE;
> @@ -1007,7 +1006,8 @@
> goto err_out;
> }
>
> - memcpy(skb_put(bounce_skb, len), skb->data, skb->len);
> + skb_copy_from_linear_data(skb, skb_put(bounce_skb, len),
> + skb->len);
> dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> skb = bounce_skb;
> }
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Maximilian Engelhardt <maxi-OwNUvPV92VfddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org>
To: Michael Buesch <mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel"
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-wireless"
<linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Stephen Hemminger
<shemminger-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme-f8uhVLnGfZaxAyOMLChx1axOck334EZe@public.gmane.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Gary Zambrano <zambrano-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Andrew Morton
<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend)
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 00:15:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705280016.02776.maxi@daemonizer.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705272313.33129.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3445 bytes --]
On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 27 May 2007 21:25:17 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > 2.6.21.1:
> > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 58414 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> > [ 5] 0.0-60.6 sec 1.13 MBytes 157 Kbits/sec
> > [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 57837
> > [ 4] 0.0-63.1 sec 2.82 MBytes 375 Kbits/sec
> >
> > 2.6.22-rc3:
> > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46557 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> > [ 5] 0.0-60.4 sec 58.9 MBytes 8.18 Mbits/sec
> > [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 51633
> > [ 4] 0.0-63.1 sec 7.27 MBytes 967 Kbits/sec
>
> This is the diff between these two kernels.
> I'm not sure why you see a much better TX throughput here.
>
> Can you re-check to make sure it's not just some test-jitter?
>
2.6.21.1:
[ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 54423 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
[ 5] 0.0-60.3 sec 3.06 MBytes 426 Kbits/sec
[ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 41053
[ 4] 0.0-163.0 sec 130 MBytes 6.67 Mbits/sec
2.6.22-rc3:
[ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46002 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
[ 5] 0.0-61.5 sec 84.0 MBytes 11.5 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 44379
[ 4] 0.0-93.8 sec 30.6 MBytes 2.74 Mbits/sec
For TX the iperf server reports the same values as the client (all values are
from the client) but for RX they are differen:
2.6.21.1: (iperf server log):
[ 5] local 192.168.1.1 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 54423
[ 5] 0.0-60.5 sec 3.06 MBytes 425 Kbits/sec
[ 5] local 192.168.1.1 port 41053 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 5001
[ 5] 0.0-63.1 sec 130 MBytes 17.2 Mbits/sec
2.6.22-rc3 (iperf server log):
[ 4] local 192.168.1.1 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 46002
[ 4] 0.0-61.6 sec 84.0 MBytes 11.5 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 192.168.1.1 port 44379 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 5001
[ 4] 0.0-63.3 sec 30.6 MBytes 4.06 Mbits/sec
I have no idea how iperf internally works and what can cause such different
results here.
>
> --- linux-2.6.21.1/drivers/net/b44.c 2007-05-27 22:58:01.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.22-rc3/drivers/net/b44.c 2007-05-27 23:01:44.000000000 +0200
> @@ -825,12 +825,11 @@
> if (copy_skb == NULL)
> goto drop_it_no_recycle;
>
> - copy_skb->dev = bp->dev;
> skb_reserve(copy_skb, 2);
> skb_put(copy_skb, len);
> /* DMA sync done above, copy just the actual packet
> */ - memcpy(copy_skb->data, skb->data+bp->rx_offset,
> len); -
> + skb_copy_from_linear_data_offset(skb,
> bp->rx_offset, +
> copy_skb->data, len); skb = copy_skb;
> }
> skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_NONE;
> @@ -1007,7 +1006,8 @@
> goto err_out;
> }
>
> - memcpy(skb_put(bounce_skb, len), skb->data, skb->len);
> + skb_copy_from_linear_data(skb, skb_put(bounce_skb, len),
> + skb->len);
> dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> skb = bounce_skb;
> }
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-27 22:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-26 0:24 b44: regression in 2.6.22 Stephen Hemminger
2007-05-26 3:51 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-26 17:01 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 19:25 ` b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend) Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 19:25 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 19:45 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 19:45 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 20:36 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 20:36 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 20:46 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 20:46 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:46 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 21:46 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 21:13 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:13 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:16 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:50 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 21:50 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 22:15 ` Maximilian Engelhardt [this message]
2007-05-27 22:15 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 0:24 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 0:40 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 0:40 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 10:16 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 10:16 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 14:09 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 14:09 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 15:14 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 15:14 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 15:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-28 15:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-28 15:43 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 15:43 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 17:44 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 19:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-28 20:55 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 21:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-05-29 18:28 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-29 18:28 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-29 13:58 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 13:58 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 17:23 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-29 17:23 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-03 16:26 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-04 6:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 6:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 16:09 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 16:09 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 16:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 16:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 16:59 ` iperf: performance regression (was b44 driver problem?) Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 17:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 17:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 17:51 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 19:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 19:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 19:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 19:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-04 19:47 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-04 20:02 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 20:52 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-04 20:52 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 10:49 ` b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend) Michael Buesch
2007-05-28 14:12 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 14:12 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 14:55 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-29 14:14 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 20:45 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-29 20:45 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-29 21:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-05-29 21:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-05-29 21:05 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 21:05 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 22:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-29 22:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-29 21:36 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-29 21:36 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-30 10:45 ` Michael Buesch
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-05-28 23:00 Uwe Bugla
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200705280016.02776.maxi@daemonizer.de \
--to=maxi@daemonizer.de \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mb@bu3sch.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=zambrano@broadcom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.