From owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Sep 17 23:09:46 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org
Received: from hub.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8094F1065672;
	Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:09:45 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:09:44 +0900
From: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>
To: pyunyh@gmail.com
Message-Id: <20090918080944.23532c80.nork@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090917170849.GL1155@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
References: <20090914193722.GD1155@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
	<20090918000657.099df7c4.nork@FreeBSD.org>
	<20090917170849.GL1155@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.6; i386-portbld-freebsd8.0)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@freebsd.org>, 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
List-Id: FreeBSD support for USB <freebsd-usb.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-usb>,
	<mailto:freebsd-usb-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-usb>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-usb@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-usb-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-usb>,
	<mailto:freebsd-usb-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:09:46 -0000

Hi pyun!

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:08:49 -0700
Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 	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?

	Yes.  I think that these are strange.

> 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

	No I don't apply any patch to axe/usb.

> 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?

	I'll try, please wait a while.

> Also please let me know what netperf parameters were used in the
> test.

	Simple-fully, it's all default.

	Server:	netserver
	Client:	netperf -H Server

> > 	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"?

	Yes, too!

	Thank you.