From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kernel@pengutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: mvneta: Fix Serdes configuration for 2.5Gbps modes
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:52:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200612115250.GS11869@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200612113031.GI1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:30:31PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:22:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:42:08AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > With the obvious mistakes fixed (extraneous 'i' and lack of default
> > > case), it seems to still work on Armada 388 Clearfog Pro with 2.5G
> > > modules.
> >
> > ... and the other bug fixed - mvneta_comphy_init() needs to be passed
> > the interface mode.
>
> Unrelated to the patch, has anyone noticed that mvneta's performance
> seems to have reduced? I've only just noticed it (which makes 2.5Gbps
> rather pointless). This is iperf between two clearfogs with a 2.5G
> fibre link:
>
> root@clearfog21:~# iperf -V -c fe80::250:43ff:fe02:303%eno2
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Client connecting to fe80::250:43ff:fe02:303%eno2, TCP port 5001
> TCP window size: 43.8 KByte (default)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 3] local fe80::250:43ff:fe21:203 port 48928 connected with fe80::250:43ff:fe02:303 port 5001
> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
> [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 553 MBytes 464 Mbits/sec
>
> I checked with Jon Nettleton, and he confirms my recollection that
> mvneta on Armada 388 used to be able to fill a 2.5Gbps link.
>
> If Armada 388 can't manage, then I suspect Armada XP will have worse
> performance being an earlier revision SoC.
I only have one board with a Armada XP here which has a loopback cable
between two ports. It gives me:
[ 3] local 172.16.1.4 port 47002 connected with 172.16.1.0 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.27 GBytes 1.09 Gbits/sec
Still not 2.5Gbps, but at least twice the data rate you get, plus my
board has to handle both ends of the link.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
kernel@pengutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: mvneta: Fix Serdes configuration for 2.5Gbps modes
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:52:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200612115250.GS11869@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200612113031.GI1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:30:31PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:22:13PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:42:08AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > With the obvious mistakes fixed (extraneous 'i' and lack of default
> > > case), it seems to still work on Armada 388 Clearfog Pro with 2.5G
> > > modules.
> >
> > ... and the other bug fixed - mvneta_comphy_init() needs to be passed
> > the interface mode.
>
> Unrelated to the patch, has anyone noticed that mvneta's performance
> seems to have reduced? I've only just noticed it (which makes 2.5Gbps
> rather pointless). This is iperf between two clearfogs with a 2.5G
> fibre link:
>
> root@clearfog21:~# iperf -V -c fe80::250:43ff:fe02:303%eno2
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Client connecting to fe80::250:43ff:fe02:303%eno2, TCP port 5001
> TCP window size: 43.8 KByte (default)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 3] local fe80::250:43ff:fe21:203 port 48928 connected with fe80::250:43ff:fe02:303 port 5001
> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
> [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 553 MBytes 464 Mbits/sec
>
> I checked with Jon Nettleton, and he confirms my recollection that
> mvneta on Armada 388 used to be able to fill a 2.5Gbps link.
>
> If Armada 388 can't manage, then I suspect Armada XP will have worse
> performance being an earlier revision SoC.
I only have one board with a Armada XP here which has a loopback cable
between two ports. It gives me:
[ 3] local 172.16.1.4 port 47002 connected with 172.16.1.0 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.27 GBytes 1.09 Gbits/sec
Still not 2.5Gbps, but at least twice the data rate you get, plus my
board has to handle both ends of the link.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-12 11:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-12 8:38 [PATCH v2] net: mvneta: Fix Serdes configuration for 2.5Gbps modes Sascha Hauer
2020-06-12 8:38 ` Sascha Hauer
2020-06-12 8:47 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 8:47 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 10:01 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 10:01 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 10:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 10:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 10:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 10:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 11:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 11:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 11:30 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 11:30 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 11:52 ` Sascha Hauer [this message]
2020-06-12 11:52 ` Sascha Hauer
2020-06-12 13:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 13:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 12:06 ` Sascha Hauer
2020-06-12 12:06 ` Sascha Hauer
2020-06-12 12:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 12:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2020-06-12 10:15 ` Sascha Hauer
2020-06-12 10:15 ` Sascha Hauer
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=20200612115250.GS11869@pengutronix.de \
--to=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.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.