From owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 17 17:17:12 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34FE106566B for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:17:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com (mail-qy0-f189.google.com [209.85.221.189]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A278FC17 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:17:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qyk27 with SMTP id 27so292382qyk.13 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:17:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:from:date:to:cc :subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Rh20H9xM+4CJAyuRcIhKc1S8UyZFrYtjxCADx+B8w88=; b=sVhogx6tibnsbXDTxD2QJweO6z1hKe4VDIw0p1pvFJAzeOCeowlF6jU8oIgP5KlkJ+ wSsaR+mek5HxJwoi4Ha3Yitnr/nzftL76N7uquRXG0GU6XfZCkJkrSIhn5ESSBtvZvOn V6gPdYUSAOHaj3eLtUMmtkf/dWG+5OlzjNSlw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=qaFIXtvnkaO/e4aVPaR+pBTHJKwXXo1rTZjX+5hzCKp7uICxPCSvMYLFXFMQVX1Raf mEweZpC9GgUOinDEwzx/AcHleG/OY1dZEv26JrmewubHMIo9718iR519+r/lJwmZLO8j 8b64v0nsKx1QiZTPSZyiUjkSJdI3RAE0KakOU= Received: by 10.224.41.84 with SMTP id n20mr523459qae.205.1253207382964; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:09:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pyunyh@gmail.com ([174.35.1.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm87810qwh.28.2009.09.17.10.09.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pyunyh@gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:08:49 -0700 From: Pyun YongHyeon Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:08:49 -0700 To: Norikatsu Shigemura Message-ID: <20090917170849.GL1155@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <20090914193722.GD1155@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <20090918000657.099df7c4.nork@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090918000657.099df7c4.nork@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFT: axe(4) performance patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: FreeBSD support for USB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:17:12 -0000 On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:06:57AM +0900, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > Hi pyun! > > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:37:22 -0700 > Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > I submitted axe(4) performance patch to Hans and he committed the > > patch to P4. > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=168457 > > I tested following environments: > Thanks a lot nork@ ! > AX88178(GbE), AX88172(100), AX88772(100), bge(GbE), re(GbE), rl(100) > > patched: AX88178, AX88172, AX88772 <-> bge > old: AX88178, AX88172, AX88772 <-> bge > patched: AX88178, AX88172, AX88772 <-> rl > old: AX88178, AX88172, AX88772 <-> re > > My environment, there are 3 machines: > +--+----+-------------+----+ (All port GbE L2SW) > | | | > bge re rl > (patched) (old) > > bge: FreeBSD 7.2-stable > re: FreeBSD 9-current > rl: FreeBSD 8.0-beta4 > > > For test environments: > +--+----+---+---+---+ +--+-----+--+------+---+ > | | | | | | > bge re rl-axe bge re-axe rl > (old) (patched) > > > According to netperf, > > patched: AX88178, AX88172, AX88772 <-> bge > 60Mbps, 60Mbps, 25Mbps > patched: AX88178, AX88172, AX88772 <-> rl > 90Mbps, 60Mbps, 40Mbps > > old: AX88178, AX88172, AX88772 <-> bge > 180Mbps, 90Mbps, 95Mbps > old: AX88178, AX88172, AX88772 <-> re > 180Mbps, 90Mbps, 95Mbps > I'm not sure I understood the test environment. But it looks un-patched axe(4) performs better, right? One odd thing is performance differences for AX88172. My patch does not touch AX88172 controller but your benchmark shows big differences for AX88172. Are you sure you didn't apply other patches for axe(4)/USB stack? Ehh, I was wrong, there was a change for AX88172. The bufsize was changed to 16KB from 2KB for AX88172, that was not my intention. It seems new USB stack has no easy way to configure this parameter in attach phase so I used 16KB. Would you try changing the value to MCLBYTES(aorund line number 208 in patched if_axe.c) and test it on AX88172? Also please let me know what netperf parameters were used in the test. > Ummmm, I'll try to update old(rl) machine to pached, and re-test. > > Thank you. It seems you have all three variants that axe(4) supports, so would you test "http://p4db.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=168602"?