On 1/26/24 1:08 AM, Biju Das wrote:
[...]
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@xxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 7:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] Add HW checksum offload support for
>> RZ/G2L GbEthernet IP
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> On 1/24/24 1:21 PM, Biju Das wrote:
>>
>>> This patch series aims to add HW checksum offload supported by TOE
>>> module found on the RZ/G2L Gb ethernet IP.
>>
>> Your previous try was back in 2021, still the cover letter has the same
>> issues (hm, I didn't point out those back then).
>
> Thanks for correcting my bad English.
I don't think you were the author of the e.g. RZ/G2L User's Manual that
has the same wording... Or were you? :-)
[...]
>>> TOE does not calculate checksum for UDP part of this frame as it is
>>> optional function as per standards.
>>>
>>> Add Tx/Rx checksum offload supported by TOE for IPV4 and TCP/UDP
>> protocols.
>>>
>>> Results of iperf3 in Mbps
>>>
>>> RZ/V2L:
>>> TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled: {921,932}
>>> TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled: {867,612}
>>>
>>> UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled: {950,946}
>>> UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled: {952,920}
>>>
>>> RZ/G2L:
>>> TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled: {920,936}
>>> TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled: {871,626}
>>>
>>> UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled: {953,950}
>>> UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled: {954,920}
>>>
>>> RZ/G2LC:
>>> TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled: {927,936}
>>> TCP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled: {889,626}
>>>
>>> UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Enabled: {950,946}
>>> UDP(Tx/Rx) results with checksum offload Disabled: {949,944}
>>
>> Too many figures, I think... :-)
>> How RZ/G2L SoC is different from RZ/G2LC?
At least they are described by a single manual...
> Just want to share with the wider community how the HW checksum is
> improving the performance of various SoCs in the RZ/G2L family.
>
> and the results show improved performance on all 3 SoCs.
I guess RZ/V2L and RZ/G2L would've been enough... but I'm probably
quibbling... :-)
>>> v1->v2:
>>> * Updated covering letter and results
>>> * Fixed the sparse warnings for patch#1 by replacing __sum16->__wsum.
>>>
>>> Note:
>>> This patches are tested with [1] without the CPU performance is not
>>> good
>>
>> Without CPU? I guess the performance would be 0. Seriously, this is
>> hardly parseable... :-)
>
> without the patch [1] CPU performance is not good which impacts the
> network throughput.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240117190545.596057-1-vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx/
Thanks, that's much better. :-)
> Cheers,
> Biju
MBR, Sergey
