lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend)
    Date
    On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
    > On Sunday 27 May 2007 21:25:17 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
    > > 2.6.22-rc3:
    > >
    > > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46557 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
    > > [ 5] 0.0-60.4 sec 58.9 MBytes 8.18 Mbits/sec
    > > [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 51633
    > > [ 4] 0.0-63.1 sec 7.27 MBytes 967 Kbits/sec
    >
    > Why do we have two different measurements here? Is one TX and one RX?
    > Which one?

    Yes, the first is TX (BCM4401 --> e100) and the second is RX. Both are tcp
    connections. I think iperf does display the ip addresses wrong in the second
    connection, but that's another issue.

    >
    > > koala:~# ping -c10 192.168.1.1
    > > PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
    > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.243 ms
    > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.234 ms
    > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.238 ms
    > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.235 ms
    > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.230 ms
    > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.317 ms
    > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.232 ms
    > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.232 ms
    > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.228 ms
    > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.238 ms
    > >
    > > --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
    > > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 8997ms
    > > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.228/0.242/0.317/0.031 ms
    > >
    > > System responsiveness was the same as with 2.6.21.1.
    > >
    > > wget got 11.23M/s, again same as 2.6.21.1.
    > >
    > >
    > > 2.6.22-rc2-mm1:
    > >
    > > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 42198 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
    > > [ 5] 0.0-60.1 sec 402 MBytes 56.1 Mbits/sec
    > > [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 48598
    > > [ 4] 0.0-63.0 sec 177 MBytes 23.6 Mbits/sec
    >
    > So with -mm (with ssb) you actually get better performace
    > then with plain 2.6.22-rc3?
    >
    > Can you elaborate a bit more about what you get an what you expect
    > on which kernel?

    When I ran 2.6.21.1 or 2.6.22-rc3 without any debugging tools just in normal
    use I didn't notice any problems. It did work fine as I would expect it.
    I think the wget and ping tests here are as they should be.

    With 2.6.22-rc2-mm1 I noticed that connections seem to be slower. The ping
    test does confirm this, because here response times are very high. As far as
    I can remember the wget download rate was a bit slower than 2.6.21.1 or
    2.6.22-rc3 till it stalled.
    I would expect it to be someting like the other two kernels. The two problems
    I see are the high ping times and the fact that the card stopped working.

    I don't know why the iperf results are so different from my personal
    experience. I guess the fact that I get so bad results with 2.6.21.1 and
    2.6.22-rc3 is that iperf does something that causes the system to be
    extremely slow and thus degrading performance. This could be a bug somewhere
    in the b44 driver of 2.6.21.1 and 2.6.22-RC3 that has unintended been fixed
    by the ssb switch, but that's only a roughly guess.

    Maxi
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-05-27 22:39    [W:3.963 / U:0.176 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site