From: "Arınç ÜNAL" <arinc.unal@arinc9.com>
To: Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc: DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>, Greg Ungerer <gerg@kernel.org>,
Richard van Schagen <richard@routerhints.com>,
Richard van Schagen <vschagen@cs.com>,
Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@public-files.de>,
mithat.guner@xeront.com, erkin.bozoglu@xeront.com,
bartel.eerdekens@constell8.be, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: MT7530 bug, forward broadcast and unknown frames to the correct CPU port
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 10:59:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <21ce3015-b379-056c-e5ca-8763c58c6553@arinc9.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <839003bf-477e-9c91-3a98-08f8ca869276@arinc9.com>
On 1.05.2023 12:43, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> On 1.05.2023 13:31, Daniel Golle wrote:
>> On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 01:09:30PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 10:52:12PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>>>> On 29.04.2023 21:56, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 09:39:41PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>>>>>> Are you fine with the preferred port patch now that I mentioned
>>>>>> port 6
>>>>>> would be preferred for MT7531BE since it's got 2.5G whilst port 5 has
>>>>>> got 1G? Would you like to submit it or leave it to me to send the
>>>>>> diff
>>>>>> above and this?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, please tell me: what real life difference would it make to a user
>>>>> who doesn't care to analyze which CPU port is used?
>>>>
>>>> They would get 2.5 Gbps download/upload bandwidth in total to the CPU,
>>>> instead of 1 Gbps. 3 computers connected to 3 switch ports would
>>>> each get
>>>> 833 Mbps download/upload speed to/from the CPU instead of 333 Mbps.
>>>
>>> In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't.
>>> Are you able to obtain 833 Mbps concurrently over 3 user ports?
>>
>> Probably the 2.5 GBit/s won't saturate, but I do manage to get more
>> than 1 Gbit/s total (using the hardware flow offloading capability to
>> NAT-route WAN<->LAN and simultanously have a WiFi client access a NAS
>> device which also connects to a LAN port. I use MT7915E+MT7975D mPCIe
>> module with BPi-R2)
>>
>> Using PHY muxing to directly map the WAN port to GMAC2 is also an
>> option, but would be limiting the bandwidth for those users who just
>> want all 5 ports to be bridged. Hence I do agree with Arınç that the
>> best would be to use the TRGMII link on GMAC1 for the 4 WAN ports and
>> prefer using RGMII link on GMAC2 for the WAN port, but keep using DSA.
>
> You seem to be rather talking about MT7530 while I think preferring port 6
> would benefit MT7531BE the most.
>
> Can you test the actual speed with SGMII on MT7531? Route between two
> ports and
> do a bidirectional iperf3 speed test.
>
> SGMII should at least provide you with 2 Gbps bandwidth in total in a
> router-on-a-stick scenario which is the current situation until the
> changing
> DSA conduit support is added.
>
> If we were to use port 5, download and upload speed would be capped at 500
> Mbps. With SGMII you should get 1000 Mbps on each.
I tested this on Daniel's Banana Pi BPI-R3 which has got an MT7531AE
switch. I can confirm I get more than 500 Mbps for RX and TX on a
bidirectional speed test.
[SUM][RX-S] 0.00-18.00 sec 1.50 GBytes 715 Mbits/sec
receiver
[SUM][TX-S] 0.00-18.00 sec 1.55 GBytes 742 Mbits/sec 6996
sender
The test was run between two computers on different networks,
192.168.1.0/24 and 192.168.2.0/24, both computers had static routes to
reach each other. I tried iperf3 as the server and client on both
computers with similar results.
This concludes preferring port 6 is practically beneficial for MT7531BE.
Arınç
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-10 9:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-23 15:22 MT7530 bug, forward broadcast and unknown frames to the correct CPU port Arınç ÜNAL
2023-04-26 20:54 ` Vladimir Oltean
2023-04-28 13:31 ` Arınç ÜNAL
2023-04-29 13:03 ` Arınç ÜNAL
2023-04-29 17:35 ` Vladimir Oltean
2023-04-29 18:39 ` Arınç ÜNAL
2023-04-29 18:44 ` Arınç ÜNAL
2023-04-29 18:56 ` Vladimir Oltean
2023-04-29 19:52 ` Arınç ÜNAL
2023-05-01 10:09 ` Vladimir Oltean
2023-05-01 10:31 ` Daniel Golle
2023-05-01 10:43 ` Arınç ÜNAL
2023-05-10 8:59 ` Arınç ÜNAL [this message]
2023-05-10 14:02 ` Vladimir Oltean
2023-05-16 20:01 ` Arınç ÜNAL
2023-05-17 15:52 ` Vladimir Oltean
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=21ce3015-b379-056c-e5ca-8763c58c6553@arinc9.com \
--to=arinc.unal@arinc9.com \
--cc=bartel.eerdekens@constell8.be \
--cc=daniel@makrotopia.org \
--cc=dqfext@gmail.com \
--cc=erkin.bozoglu@xeront.com \
--cc=frank-w@public-files.de \
--cc=gerg@kernel.org \
--cc=mithat.guner@xeront.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olteanv@gmail.com \
--cc=richard@routerhints.com \
--cc=vschagen@cs.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox