public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com>
To: Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@nxp.com>
Cc: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@nxp.com>,
	imx@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-imx@nxp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next resent] net: fec: Enable SOC specific rx-usecs coalescence default setting
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 11:17:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zqi9oRGbTGDUfjhi@LQ3V64L9R2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240729193527.376077-1-shenwei.wang@nxp.com>

On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 02:35:27PM -0500, Shenwei Wang wrote:
> The current FEC driver uses a single default rx-usecs coalescence setting
> across all SoCs. This approach leads to suboptimal latency on newer, high
> performance SoCs such as i.MX8QM and i.MX8M.
> 
> For example, the following are the ping result on a i.MX8QXP board:
> 
> $ ping 192.168.0.195
> PING 192.168.0.195 (192.168.0.195) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.195: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.32 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.195: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.31 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.195: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.33 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.195: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.33 ms
> 
> The current default rx-usecs value of 1000us was originally optimized for
> CPU-bound systems like i.MX2x and i.MX6x. However, for i.MX8 and later
> generations, CPU performance is no longer a limiting factor. Consequently,
> the rx-usecs value should be reduced to enhance receive latency.
> 
> The following are the ping result with the 100us setting:
> 
> $ ping 192.168.0.195
> PING 192.168.0.195 (192.168.0.195) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.195: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.554 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.195: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.499 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.195: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.502 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.195: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.486 ms
> 
> Performance testing using iperf revealed no noticeable impact on
> network throughput or CPU utilization.

I'm not sure this short paragraph addresses Andrew's comment:

  Have you benchmarked CPU usage with this patch, for a range of traffic
  bandwidths and burst patterns. How does it differ?

Maybe you could provide more details of the iperf tests you ran? It
seems odd that CPU usage is unchanged.

If the system is more reactive (due to lower coalesce settings and
IRQs firing more often), you'd expect CPU usage to increase,
wouldn't you?

- Joe

  reply	other threads:[~2024-07-30 10:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-29 19:35 [PATCH v2 net-next resent] net: fec: Enable SOC specific rx-usecs coalescence default setting Shenwei Wang
2024-07-30 10:17 ` Joe Damato [this message]
2024-07-30 13:47   ` Shenwei Wang
2024-07-30 14:24   ` Fabio Estevam
2024-07-30 19:26     ` Shenwei Wang
2024-07-31 23:56   ` Andrew Lunn
2024-10-16  2:34     ` Wei Fang

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=Zqi9oRGbTGDUfjhi@LQ3V64L9R2 \
    --to=jdamato@fastly.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=imx@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-imx@nxp.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=shenwei.wang@nxp.com \
    --cc=wei.fang@nxp.com \
    --cc=xiaoning.wang@nxp.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