[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: network throughput
>Thanks for the program... I am not sure exactly where the problem is, but
>I consistently get UDP as well as TCP throughput of only around 1.2 to 1.5
>MBytes/s using tcp_perf.
It's hard to say why you get much lower performance than other people.
It may be a duplex problem. Is the card connected directly to a
I think you need to look for the problem in your network
(or on your developer board) and not in the software.
Everybody else seams to get better performance than you.
Try different hubs, client computers etc.
>The thing I am more concerned about is the overruns, since they are
>causing the box to lock up...
Between 2.4.14 and 2.4.19 a bug in the ETRAX has been detected.
This bug can cause problems at Ethernet overrun. This bug
has been workarounded in 2.4.19 (by calling prepare_rx_descriptor).
>Is this correct?
Not really with the latest driver. Something like this happens
(assuming that all packets are > RX_COPYBREAK):
1. Packet is received by DMA
2. ETRAX generates interrupt
3. Interrupt is disabled
4. For all received packets:
1. Put packet on a list for later handling by the kernel.
2. New memory is allocated for the DMA.
3. DMA is restarted
5. Interrupt is enabled
6. DMA is restarted
In your TCP test the TCP window should throttle the data
before the DMA gets out of buffers (unless you have
lots of other traffic).
>-In that case, what is number of slots in the DMA ring on the card?
>(Mikael had mentioned that there are 64 OS buffers, but presumably the
>card has less - if I configure the gap in tcp_perf's UDP send routine to
>anything more than 25 packets, there are overruns...)
The number of "slots" is maximum 64. The average number of
usable slots is approx. 45 (due to performance reasons and
the hardware bug).
For the transmitter we have 256 "slots" i.e. 256 packets
can be queued up for transmission.
>- in the latest version of ethernet.c, there is the RX_COPYBREAK
>optimization Mikael mentioned - "double buffering",
>right? Is there any data on how this threshold (currently 256 bytes) was
>arrived at, and if it might be better to do double buffering for all
Packets shorter than RX_COPYBREAK are copied to avoid wasting
of too much memory. Longer packets are not copied. The performance
is decreased by setting the RX_COPYBREAK to a value larger than
the maximum ethernet packet
The value 256 is quite random. Other values doesn't affect the
performance using fullsize packets but may affect performance
and memory usage with small packets.