From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8739AC74A5B for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 12:38:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To: Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=kJXWnkpthEjijADXj3xN4M4fx5SC90afSVNiUZUvnIw=; b=ZrjvzqeMKhGpJW dGnIUlhhF9UmTMvMFM3Hr0xsULFr88bE6sJeo+vbmuQvGWCai9BXSf5BaySJxMzVaKGRbNuKF43cd zmcn47Qvwq4NhNuMlMNXINLQppGFhsbm1OdxdZgeD7Slzvor9g2fls3MWUIMD7PSwrKLB8VoC38xA Xuik/rhYA/YkzDwjeOD1bDp59bPcDURT6xLogrc3xPAPjIPxePXlsJTlLRC25ifha8cDSnwHigvzE 84vzViUq/tuMTQ7KhyWgF7vsznG2XpR3/2uKVs9DR+f2vEn2rWAliLbgS/mBhPvoIFrcU1nRvq8Po Z+AgQyhzUnG+avKMFtuQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pebFh-00CLxf-2v; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 12:38:09 +0000 Received: from smtp2-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.2]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pebFe-00CLwc-2q for linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 12:38:08 +0000 Received: from [192.168.108.81] (unknown [213.36.7.13]) (Authenticated sender: marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20C1B200410; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 13:37:41 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=free.fr; s=smtp-20201208; t=1679402282; bh=ayjhC2BQbFfTl1beiJuuMQv5sxjmgYk/0tf5p8b9j6w=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=XQYu/zDw/QM4lEqMWZJqO06dILPiNz57BlD6PhZT+iRSxi/S5ZOsNttxSsPUPc0Dl PKsz2R6kOuTNFU2spJ6v35Hsao9DYOBXz+3OH6T1+K7Mb1g5tL3Bd84fIsxNvzG5hS 0NSDwh3MIgCn8qt/0afWl+7YhXB0uhZ00Ut4M6FsNRndcsOg2zblL3MopRR2NTJvxg IHL/J+8NTvmNgCGkunFRlQkK7x6hqmDJJ+wFwpomMAPfhGtqZ7vwU6DYuprwXnzFNe 8nqcoe9PDphcKclH/guELoHOG88DC23na0ete6Byx66yrUkTNoPmtZ8MwjB2ZluzNh zTI9GoSsLW60g== Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 13:37:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.1 Subject: Re: Performance lower than expected with BCM4359/9 on S905X2 Content-Language: en-US To: Jerome Brunet , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, MMC , AML Cc: Neil Armstrong , Arend van Spriel , Franky Lin , Hante Meuleman , Kalle Valo , Eric Dumazet , Ulf Hansson , Pieter-Paul Giesberts , Alexander Prutskov , Joseph chuang , Kevin Hilman , Martin Blumenstingl , Angus Ainslie , Heiner Kallweit , Pierre-Hugues Husson References: <1jh6ue74x9.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com> From: Marc Gonzalez In-Reply-To: <1jh6ue74x9.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20230321_053807_081148_8CDD194E X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 18.90 ) X-BeenThere: linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-amlogic" Errors-To: linux-amlogic-bounces+linux-amlogic=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 21/03/2023 11:46, Jerome Brunet wrote: > On Tue 21 Mar 2023 at 11:40, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > >> I've been benchmarking an Amlogic S905X2 board. >> It provides a BCM4359/9 WiFi chip connected through SDIO. >> >> There's a large performance gap between vendor kernel and mainline. >> (Downloading a 1GB file to /dev/null from a device inches away) > > The title is misleading. You are comparing different sources. This is > not a regression. This is merely a difference. I have changed the subject line to a (hopefully) more accurate one. > If we are talking about mainline, then which board is it ? What is the > corresponding DT ? What is the MMC configuration in both case ? Have > you checked you are running with the same clock configuration to begin > with ? Perhaps my initial request was unclear, my apologies. I was asking whether anyone using any S905X2 board had noticed such a performance discrepancy. (Neil seems to have provided a full explanation for the situation.) For what it's worth, I'm using an sei530 board, which appears to be a minor variant of the sei510 (down to the schematics). >> # curl -o /dev/null http://192.168.1.254:8095/fixed/1G >> % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current >> Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed >> 100 1024M 100 1024M 0 0 27.5M 0 0:00:37 0:00:37 --:--:-- 28.6M >> vs >> 100 1024M 100 1024M 0 0 11.0M 0 0:01:32 0:01:32 --:--:-- 11.0M >> >> Line 1 = vendor kernel (4.9.180 amlogic android) > > This cannot help identify a downstream kernel, and the infinite number > of forks and patches associated with it. I was not asking anyone to reproduce my exact setup. I find it confusing that some assume there is something different about the board I'm using. The more likely hypothesis is that all S905X2 boards have the same behavior. Regards _______________________________________________ linux-amlogic mailing list linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic