From: Maximilian Engelhardt <maxi-OwNUvPV92VfddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org>
To: Michael Buesch <mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-kernel"
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-wireless"
<linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: 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: Sun, 27 May 2007 21:25:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705272125.25506.maxi@daemonizer.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200705261901.18110.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5413 bytes --]
I send this again because my first mail accidently had html code in it and
might have been filtered by some people.
On Saturday 26 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Saturday 26 May 2007 02:24:31 Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Something is broken with the b44 driver in 2.6.22-rc1 or later. Now
> > bisecting. The performance (with iperf) for receiving is normally 94Mbits
> > or more. But something happened that dropped performance to less than
> > 1Mbit, probably corrupted packets.
> >
> > There is nothing obvious in the commit log for drivers/net/b44.c, so it
> > probably is something more general.
> >
> >
> > Looking at the code in b44_rx(), I see a couple unrelated of bugs:
> > 1. In the small packet case it recycles the skb before copying data
> > out... Not good if new data arrives overwriting existing data.
> >
> > 2. Macros like RX_PKT_BUF_SZ that depend on local variables are evil!!
>
> Very interesting!
> 2.6.22 doesn't include ssb, does it?
>
> Adding CCs to make reporters of another bugreport aware of this.
I did some more tests with my BCM4401 and different kernels, here are the
results:
2.6.21.1:
iperf:
[ 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
koala:~# ping -c10 192.168.1.1
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.241 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.215 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.230 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.238 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.229 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.228 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.231 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.229 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.228 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.237 ms
--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 8998ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.215/0.230/0.241/0.018 ms
The system was unusable while i ran the iperf test, when I moved the mouse it
was only jumping around and doing anything like starting programs or
switching the desktop first happend after iperf had finished it's test.
I did a http downlaod with wget and got 11.23M/s.
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
koala:~# ping -c10 192.168.1.1
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.243 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.234 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.238 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.235 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.230 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.317 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.232 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.232 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.228 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.238 ms
--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 8997ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.228/0.242/0.317/0.031 ms
System responsiveness was the same as with 2.6.21.1.
wget got 11.23M/s, again same as 2.6.21.1.
2.6.22-rc2-mm1:
[ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 42198 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
[ 5] 0.0-60.1 sec 402 MBytes 56.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 48598
[ 4] 0.0-63.0 sec 177 MBytes 23.6 Mbits/sec
koala:~# ping -c10 192.168.1.1
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=39.8 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=52.7 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=86.7 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=8.22 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=32.1 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=56.0 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=80.0 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.52 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=25.4 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=49.3 ms
--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.526/43.207/86.700/26.369 ms
Here system responsiveness was ok whil I ran iperf, I didn't notic anything
anomalous.
When I tried the wget http download the tranfer did stall and from this point
on I couldn't send or receive anything on my BCM4401 anymore. Taken the
interface down and up again didn't help anything. I wonder if this is Uwe's
problem
on all the kernels there apperaded nothing special in dmesg.
for the iperf test I connect my BCM4401 directly with an e100. The system with
the e100 was iperf server and ran fine all over the test.
Maxi
[-- 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 19:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ 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
[not found] ` <200705261901.18110.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-27 19:25 ` Maximilian Engelhardt [this message]
[not found] ` <200705272125.25506.maxi-OwNUvPV92VfddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-27 19:45 ` b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend) Michael Buesch
[not found] ` <200705272145.00796.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-27 20:36 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
[not found] ` <200705272236.42628.maxi-OwNUvPV92VfddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-27 20:46 ` Michael Buesch
[not found] ` <200705272246.16960.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-27 21:46 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-27 21:13 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-27 21:16 ` Michael Buesch
[not found] ` <200705272316.07338.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-27 21:50 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
[not found] ` <200705272313.33129.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-27 22:15 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 0:24 ` Michael Buesch
[not found] ` <200705280224.40506.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-28 0:40 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
[not found] ` <200705280240.17910.maxi-OwNUvPV92VfddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-28 10:16 ` Michael Buesch
[not found] ` <200705281216.51690.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-28 14:09 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
[not found] ` <200705281609.49859.maxi-OwNUvPV92VfddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-28 15:14 ` Michael Buesch
[not found] ` <200705281714.25841.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-28 15:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
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
[not found] ` <200705282255.56490.maxi-OwNUvPV92VfddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-29 13:58 ` Gary Zambrano
[not found] ` <1180447123.17146.4.camel-opBMJL+S1+nCw/J+WP9nZ0NK2P1VvzQgpWgKQ6/u3Fg@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-29 17:23 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-06-03 16:26 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
[not found] ` <200706031826.06891.maxi-OwNUvPV92VfddJNmlsFzeA@public.gmane.org>
2007-06-04 6:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-04 16:09 ` Stephen Hemminger
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 17:51 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-06-04 19:00 ` 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
2007-05-28 10:49 ` b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend) Michael Buesch
[not found] ` <200705281249.56106.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-28 14:12 ` Maximilian Engelhardt
2007-05-28 14:55 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-29 14:14 ` Gary Zambrano
[not found] ` <1180448075.17146.12.camel-opBMJL+S1+nCw/J+WP9nZ0NK2P1VvzQgpWgKQ6/u3Fg@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-29 20:45 ` Michael Buesch
[not found] ` <200705292245.22940.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-29 21:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-05-29 21:05 ` Gary Zambrano
[not found] ` <1180472741.17711.19.camel-opBMJL+S1+nCw/J+WP9nZ0NK2P1VvzQgpWgKQ6/u3Fg@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-29 22:39 ` Jeff Garzik
[not found] ` <465CABA3.10003-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2007-05-29 21:36 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-30 10:45 ` Michael Buesch
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=200705272125.25506.maxi@daemonizer.de \
--to=maxi-ownuvpv92vfddjnmlsfzea@public.gmane.org \
--cc=acme-f8uhVLnGfZaxAyOMLChx1axOck334EZe@public.gmane.org \
--cc=akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org \
--cc=jgarzik-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=shemminger-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org \
--cc=zambrano-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.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).