Kernel 6.1 + IPQ40 Device

Hi everyone,

After building + upgrading a new firmware for my DAP-2610 with kernel 6.1 the memory usage is about a 20% more than previous kernel version (5.15 - same config - same devices connected).
The device is working great, no issues so far.

I know a new kernel (usually) gets more memory/resources, just to compare, anyone running 6.1 is getting the same memory consumption as me (20% more than before)?

Thanks for you time and help,

Hi.
That was already the case while bumping from 5.10 to 5.15. So I guess it's normal. I will test on a MR8300 in a few weeks.

2 Likes

Thanks @badulesia for your help,

Fun fact is that I was also thinking about asking the forum for return experience about kernel 6.1 on this target, before installing on my device :wink:

ipq40xx is a quite popular target, the absence of horror stories is usually quite positive.

2 Likes

You know my friend @badulesia, The Klingon Empire is always one step forward :smiley:

1 Like

Fully agree @slh I suppose the same will happend in other devices, no issues so far with 6.1.

Hi.
I have just installed latest (17 oct) snapshot with kernel 6.1 on a MR8300. It runs but I have an issue. Here is the scenario.

The device is not used as a router: I connect it to a gateway on the LAN port (1Gb fiber). It is used as a DHCP and DNS server, AP and wifi. All the routing is done on the gateway.

I deleted WAN and WAN6 interfaces, set the gateway IP. I use DHCP option 3 to tell client the gateway IP. DNS forwarding is set to the ISP DNS servers. packet steering is set. There should be no problem getting full speed from the fiber. This configuration works with any device, even vintage ones.

With 23.05 stable, I'm getting 940 Mbit/s and low load average. This is the expected result.
With snapshot, I'm only getting 750 Mbit/s, with a 0.70 load average. So my guess is that the device is analysing packets and is topping at 750 Mbit/s, whereas it shouldn't.

Am I missing something new from kernel 6.1 or DSA ?

Something similiar in my DAP-2610

root@DAP2610:~# iperf3 -c 192.168.1.1
Connecting to host 192.168.1.1, port 5201
[  5] local 192.168.1.5 port 52200 connected to 192.168.1.1 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr  Cwnd
[  5]   0.00-1.00   sec  89.3 MBytes   749 Mbits/sec    0    522 KBytes
[  5]   1.00-2.00   sec  91.0 MBytes   763 Mbits/sec    0    929 KBytes
[  5]   2.00-3.00   sec  90.0 MBytes   755 Mbits/sec    0    929 KBytes
[  5]   3.00-4.00   sec  90.5 MBytes   759 Mbits/sec    0    929 KBytes
[  5]   4.00-5.00   sec  90.1 MBytes   756 Mbits/sec    0    929 KBytes
[  5]   5.00-6.00   sec  90.7 MBytes   761 Mbits/sec    0    929 KBytes
[  5]   6.00-7.00   sec  89.9 MBytes   754 Mbits/sec    0    929 KBytes
[  5]   7.00-8.00   sec  90.7 MBytes   760 Mbits/sec    0    929 KBytes
[  5]   8.00-9.00   sec  89.9 MBytes   755 Mbits/sec    0    929 KBytes
[  5]   9.00-10.00  sec  90.7 MBytes   760 Mbits/sec    0    929 KBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
[  5]   0.00-10.00  sec   903 MBytes   757 Mbits/sec    0             sender
[  5]   0.00-10.00  sec   901 MBytes   755 Mbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.
root@DAP2610:~#
root@DAP2610:~# uname -a
Linux DAP2610 6.1.57 #0 SMP Mon Oct 16 12:16:58 2023 armv7l GNU/Linux
root@DAP2610:~#

Just no NAT, pure switch. Should be working around 1 Gb.

1 Like

Any clue where I can look at? (except for a romulan plot of course).

I have reinstalled the snapshot while keeping the stable settings (just in case I made a mistake while entering manually the settings). I still have the same behavior.

I shouldn't discard at all :wink:

No, no idea. I'll do some test.
Maybe someone running kernel 6.1 (not using a ipq40 device) could share any info.

I have already tried kernel 6.1 on other devices. But the main goal was just testing that it runs (ath79). The only device on which I ran it for a week is an x86 (so no switch, no vlan, no CPU issue).
It may be a youth bug or some kind. It's strange that LAN to LAN traffic should trigger CPU load, unless some vlan or DSA feature is involved.

Hi again.
I have installed various versions (22.03/23.05/snapshot) and perform speed tests.
22.03 (swconfig) and 23.05 (DSA) show almost identical results (430, 400 Mbit/s). With software offloading they reach both 890 Mbit/s. This subject has been discussed several time in various threads.

Now working "fine" changing nothing from config, just iperf3 to another device (same network/switch than previous test).

root@DAP2610:~# iperf3 -c 192.168.1.115
Connecting to host 192.168.1.115, port 5201
[  5] local 192.168.1.5 port 53548 connected to 192.168.1.115 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr  Cwnd
[  5]   0.00-1.00   sec  97.4 MBytes   816 Mbits/sec    0   1.79 MBytes
[  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   100 MBytes   839 Mbits/sec    0   1.79 MBytes
[  5]   2.00-3.01   sec   101 MBytes   845 Mbits/sec    0   1.79 MBytes
[  5]   3.01-4.00   sec   100 MBytes   845 Mbits/sec    0   1.79 MBytes
[  5]   4.00-5.00   sec  99.6 MBytes   838 Mbits/sec    0   1.79 MBytes
[  5]   5.00-6.00   sec  99.6 MBytes   836 Mbits/sec    0   1.79 MBytes
[  5]   6.00-7.00   sec  99.5 MBytes   832 Mbits/sec    0   1.79 MBytes
[  5]   7.00-8.01   sec   100 MBytes   836 Mbits/sec    0   1.79 MBytes
[  5]   8.01-9.00   sec  98.6 MBytes   833 Mbits/sec    0   1.79 MBytes
[  5]   9.00-10.00  sec  99.8 MBytes   837 Mbits/sec    0   1.79 MBytes
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bitrate         Retr
[  5]   0.00-10.00  sec   996 MBytes   836 Mbits/sec    0             sender
[  5]   0.00-10.04  sec   996 MBytes   832 Mbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.
root@DAP2610:~#

Just installed r24162 on a MR8300, this time acting like a plain router. Results are worst than ever. LAN to LAN files transfer top at 75 MB/s where it should reach 115 MB/s. Heavy load average. WAN to LAN top at 550 Mbit/s, even with software offloading.
I have a bad feeling about next major release. Let's hope it's just some youth issue or bad optimization.

1 Like