From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Johannes Stezenbach <js@sig21.net>
Cc: linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 100Mbit ethernet performance on embedded devices
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:35:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090819153534.GC30013@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090819145057.GA25400@sig21.net>
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> a while ago I was working on a SoC with 200MHz ARM926EJ-S CPU
> and integrated 100Mbit ethernet core, connected on internal
> (fast) memory bus, with DMA. With iperf I measured:
>
> TCP RX ~70Mbit/sec (iperf -s on SoC, iperf -c on destop PC)
> TCP TX ~56Mbit/sec (iperf -s on destop PC, iperf -c o SoC)
>
> The CPU load during the iperf test is around
> 1% user, 44% system, 4% irq, 48% softirq, with 7500 irqs/sec.
>
> The kernel used in these measurements does not have iptables
> support, I think packet filtering will slow it down noticably,
> but I didn't actually try. The ethernet driver uses NAPI,
> but it doesn't seem to be a win judging from the irq/sec number.
You should see far fewer interrupts if NAPI was working properly.
Rather than NAPI not being a win, it looks like it's not active at
all.
7500/sec is close to the packet rate, for sending TCP with
full-size ethernet packages over a 100Mbit ethernet link.
> What I'm interested in are some numbers for similar hardware,
> to find out if my hardware and/or ethernet driver can be improved,
> or if the CPU will always be the limiting factor.
I have a SoC with a 166MHz ARMv4 (ARM7TDMI I think, but I'm not sure),
and an external RTL8139 100Mbit ethernet chip over the SoC's PCI bus.
It gets a little over 80Mbit/s actual data throughput in both
directions, running a simple FTP client.
> I'd also be interested to know if hardware checksumming
> support would improve throughput noticably in such a system,
> or if it is only useful for 1Gbit and above.
>
> Did anyone actually manage to get close to 100Mbit/sec
> with similar CPU resources?
Remember, the TCP throughput cannot reach 100Mbit/sec due to the
overhead of packet framing. But it should be much closer to 100 than 70.
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-19 15:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-19 14:50 100Mbit ethernet performance on embedded devices Johannes Stezenbach
2009-08-19 15:05 ` Ben Hutchings
2009-08-19 15:35 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2009-08-20 12:56 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2009-08-28 14:41 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2009-08-28 17:35 ` Mark Brown
2009-08-29 7:05 ` Simon Holm Thøgersen
2009-08-27 15:38 ` H M Thalib
2009-08-28 14:26 ` Johannes Stezenbach
2009-09-02 5:09 ` Aras Vaichas
2009-09-02 19:35 ` David Acker
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=20090819153534.GC30013@shareable.org \
--to=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=js@sig21.net \
--cc=linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).