[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [microblaze-uclinux] Ethernet performance with xps_ll_temac
Hi all,
I did some tests some days ago before starting your discussion.
I made a page with some results for ml505 board with ll_temac. There are some
options. On the base of your discussion I can tell that MMU kernel is a little
bit slower than noMMU but difference is not big.
You can look at it (http://monstr.eu/wiki/doku.php?id=kernel:testing:net).
There is testing script too. Thanks for sending your results. Then we can look
where your problem is.
If anyone send my results for any devel board, hw configuration, etc. , I'll add
it there. Just send output from script and some information about your hw
configuration.
Cheers,
Michal
Terry ONeal wrote:
> I tried again on the spartan3E1600 board with the MMU enabled -
> performance was just as bad.. I then took the original S3A3400 board
> system, disabled the MMU, rebuilt the kernel, and got about a 10x
> improvement:
>
> #netperf -H 192.168.0.1 <http://192.168.0.1>
> TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 <http://0.0.0.0> (0.0.0.0 <http://0.0.0.0>)
> port 0 AF_INET to 192.168.0.1 <http://192.168.0.1> (192.168.0.1
> <http://192.168.0.1>) port 0 AF_INET
> Recv Send Send
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
> Size Size Size Time Throughput
> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>
> 0 16384 16384 10.00 18.81
>
>
>
> So it appears to me that this is related to the MMU being enabled - or
> the way the ll_temac driver is written..
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Terry ONeal <terryoneal3@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:terryoneal3@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> I'm using the Spartan3A DSP 3400 board.. That is a good point, this
> could be a physical layer issue, I've seen/heard of the same thing
> in the past... I'm going to give a couple of the other reference
> designs a try and see if other boards give better results..
>
> Thanks,
> Terry
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Whitmore Ian J
> <IJWHITMORE@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:IJWHITMORE@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Hello Terry,
>
>
>
> What Dev board/FPGA are you using?
>
>
>
> If it is Spartan 3A DSP 1800 (possibly other similar models are
> affected also) there is a problem with the physical layer DCM
> phase shift in the gmii – currently under investigation by
> Xilinx (I've only experimented at gigabit speeds though).
>
>
>
> You could try adding the following line to the
> implementation\system.ucf – in the GMII Receiver side DCM
> constraints section
>
> "INST *gmii_rxc_dcm PHASE_SHIFT = 76"
>
>
>
> This has yielded significant performance increases in
> performance at gigabit for me – but I still get some dropped
> frames of data.
>
>
>
> With various tests (again at gigabit) I have found that
> generally the bigger the ICache and DCache the better, mainly
> ICache, (32K for both allows ~4.7MBytes/sec. ).
>
> The most significant increase I have seen is by increasing the
> MTU to 8982 (~19.6 MBytes/sec) but this involves increasing your
> TEMAC fifos to 16K to handle the larger frames, and also means
> your infrastructure must support Jumbo frames.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps. I would probably try the larger ICache &
> DCache first!
>
>
>
> If you do find any more performance let me know – always nice to
> have a bit more bandwidth headroom!
>
>
>
> Ian
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:owner-microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [mailto:owner-microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:owner-microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] *On Behalf Of
> *Terry ONeal
> *Sent:* 03 November 2008 22:21
> *To:* microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject:* [microblaze-uclinux] Ethernet performance with
> xps_ll_temac
>
>
>
> Hi All, I'm working on a Microblaze system (MMU enabled) that
> uses xps_ll_temac, and I'm seeing poor network performance when
> running netperf. The phy is in 100Mb mode and I'm seeing around
> 2.5Mb/s with the netperf TCP_STREAM test. Microblaze caches are
> 16K, temac buffers are 4k, barrell shifter and HW multiplier are
> turned on. I'm using petalinux sources I pulled from the svn
> repository on 10/16/08.
>
> What is interesting is that it appears that the kernel is losing
> timer ticks - if I configure netperf to run the test for 10
> seconds, it actually takes 20 seconds (per my watch) to run, but
> the kernel only thinks it's been runnning for 10 seconds. So it
> appears the the ll_temac driver is hogging the CPU.
>
> I also put togther my own application that simply creates a UDP
> socket and sends data through it as fast as it can - the
> performance is a bit better than the netperf TCP test but still
> way off from what I'm expecting (at least 25Mb/s).
>
> Has anyone had better luck with xps_ll_temac performance? Any
> suggestions as to what may be going that is limiting the
> performance?
>
> Thanks,
> Terry
>
> The information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent
> correspondence is private and is intended solely for the intended
> recipient(s). The information in this communication may be
> confidential and/or legally privileged. Nothing in this e-mail is
> intended to conclude a contract on behalf of QinetiQ or make
> QinetiQ
> subject to any other legally binding commitments, unless the e-mail
> contains an express statement to the contrary or incorporates a
> formal Purchase Order.
>
> For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying,
> distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
> reliance
> on such information is prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> Emails and other electronic communication with QinetiQ may be
> monitored and recorded for business purposes including security,
> audit
> and archival purposes. Any response to this email indicates
> consent
> to this.
>
> Telephone calls to QinetiQ may be monitored or recorded for quality
> control, security and other business purposes.
>
> QinetiQ Limited
> Registered in England & Wales: Company Number:3796233
> Registered office: 85 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6PD, United
> Kingdom
> Trading address: Cody Technology Park, Cody Building, Ively
> Road, Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 0LX, United Kingdom
> http://www.qinetiq.com/home/notices/legal.html
> <http://www.QinetiQ.com/home/legal.html>
>
>
>
___________________________
microblaze-uclinux mailing list
microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Project Home Page : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~jwilliams/mblaze-uclinux
Mailing List Archive : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~listarch/microblaze-uclinux/