Hi Carlo, thanks for the answer. On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:17:58PM +0000, Carlo Caione wrote: > On Thu, 2018-12-06 at 13:43 +0100, Emiliano Ingrassia wrote: > > Hi all, > > Hi Emiliano, > > > thank you for involving me. > > > > I applied Carlo's patches[0] on a kernel vanilla 4.19.6 > > and tested it with kernel packet generator, monitoring > > bandwidth usage with "nload". > > > > All tests were conducted on an Odroid-C1+ Rev. 0.4-20150930 board > > with a short ethernet cable directly attached to a laptop with > > 1G ethernet interface, with "nload" running on the board. > > > > The tests I performed are composed by the following steps: > > > > 1) Start packet generator with "rate 1000M" on laptop; > > > > 2) Keep packet generator active on the laptop and > > start the packet generator on the board with "rate 1000M"; > > > > 3) Stop both packet generators; > > > > 4) Start packet generator on the board; > > > > 5) Keep packet generator active on the board and > > start the packet generator on the laptop. > > out of curiosity: why do you expect to see something different from > point (2)? > I did not expect it indeed, I tried and got different results. > > Test results without Carlo's patches applied: > > > > 1) "nload" shows an incoming traffic of ~950Mbps; > > > > 2) "nload" shows an incoming traffic of ~400Mbps > > and an outgoing traffic of ~250Mbps; > > > > 3) "nload" shows 0Mbps both for incoming and outgoing traffic; > > > > 4) "nload" shows an outgoing traffic of ~950Mbps from the board; > > > > 5) "nload" shows incoming traffic of 0Mbps > > and an outgoing traffic of ~950Mbps. > > > > Applying only the first patch (change mac IRQ type) I got the same > > results. > > This is expected. The change in the IRQ type is solving an issue that > you can see if the run a stress test involving multiple components for > several hours. > OK, did you use "stress-ng" tool for tests? > > Applying only the second patch (drop eee-broken-1000t) I got the same > > results! > > I am a bit confused here. Wasn't the eee-broken-1000t added to fix a > problem with the ethernet? Are you suggesting that for some reason you > cannot reproduce anymore the problem for which the quirk was > introduced? > Problems without the "eee-broken-1000t" flags were experimented one and a half years ago on a Amlogic development kernel from [0], probably a 4.14 version. Many patches about Meson8b SoC, dwmac-meson8b and dwmac driver were introduced so yes, the "eee-broken-1000t" was added to fix a problem with the ethernet (one and a half years ago), but new tests are needed to say if it still necessary. > > With both patches applied I got the same results but with an incoming > > traffic > > of ~3Mbps on the board. > > On all the tests and immediately from the start of the tests? > Yes, in all the 5 steps immediately from the start. I also tried to execute "nload" on both sides to see the bandwidth usage. With bot patches applied, after starting kernel packet generator on my laptop with 1Gbps rate, "nload" on the laptop side shows me an outgoing traffic of ~940Mbps while "nload" on the board side shows me an incoming traffic of ~3Mbps. Also consider that a pinging test from my laptop to the board shows a packet loss of about 90%. > When you hit the problem con you check in /proc/interrupts if you see > the IRQ counter for the eth0 incrementing or not? > The eth0 IRQ counter is incremented during the test. > Cheers, > > -- > Carlo Caione > > I would like to conduct other tests with iperf3 to be sure about the obtained results. What do you think? Should I apply your patches on the latest Amlogic development kernel? Regards, Emiliano [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux-amlogic.git/
