Gianfar is slower than fcc_enet on MPC8541 ???

[Pantelis Antoniou]

Hi Laurent,

I found that pretty hard to believe.

What are you measuring exactly?

Speed of replies? If so it's explainable since the TSECs use
NAPI.

Regards

Pantelis

On 2/14/06, Laurent Lagrange <lagrange at fr.oleane.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I work on a cutom MPC8541 board with Linux 2.6.9.
> The kernel activates the L1 cache (instructions and data)
> and the L2 cache (entirely used as cache and not as sram).
>
> I configure
> 1 FCC (FCC1),
> 2 TSECs with or without NAPI (no effect) but without stashing in L2 sram.
> All PHYs are automatically configured in 100MB full duplex.
>
>         eth0: Gianfar Ethernet Controller Version 1.1, 00:10:cd:48:48:e0
>         eth0: Running with NAPI disabled
>         eth0: 64/64 RX/TX BD ring size
>         eth1: Gianfar Ethernet Controller Version 1.1, 00:10:cd:48:48:e1
>         eth1: Running with NAPI disabled
>         eth1: 64/64 RX/TX BD ring size
>         eth2: FCC ENET Version custom, 00:10:cd:48:48:e2
>
> Then I launch 3 simple TCP servers, one on each ports.
>
> From remote machines I runs 3 TCP clients.
> The client sends messages of 1000 bytes,
> The server receives and echoes the message
> The client receives the echoed message, check the content
> and sends a new message again.
>
> The result is that the 2 TSECs are 2 times slower than the FCC.
>
> If I run a "top" application on the board, I use less than 10% of the CPU
> Each port consumes about 1/3 of the CPU.
>
> Any idea on how to configure the gianfar driver ?
>
> Thanks
> Laurent
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> Linuxppc-embedded at ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/attachments/20060214/cc1e38c0/attachment.htm