Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.11.0 for ipq806x architecture routers

Want to share your OpenWrt / Gargoyle knowledge? Implemented a new feature? Let us know here.

Moderator: Moderators

pythonic
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.11.0 for ipq806x architecture routers

Postby pythonic » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:59 am

mlira1 wrote:I have just flashed the new build on my R7800 and the bug is fixed! :mrgreen: thank you!

Thank you very much for testing that! Good to see that issue resolved.

mlira1 wrote:Just noticed something. I have a 300/150Mbit/s PPPoE Fiber connection, and it seems that Gargoyle is only reaching around 100Mbit/s upload, and 170Mbit/s download without QoS (with QoS download goes down to 100 and upload stays the same). B bufferbloat on DSLReports with QoS either on or off.

I wonder if you already have a clue of what may be limiting speeds and if any logs would be useful.

The only thing I can think of is to SSH into the router and run top while doing your speed tests. I'm just wondering whether something (PPPoE?) is maxing out 1 core...

I've tried a couple of things on my D7800 but my somewhat more pedestrian VDSL2 connection (40MbpsD/10MbpsU) means I've no chance of hitting your limits. Still, doing nothing top reports 97-98% idle and while downloading a couple of ISOs at about 2.6MBytes/s it was reporting 93-95% idle. A speedtest.net run got it down to ~85% idle during the download phase and around 95% during the upload phase. dslreports.com's speed test reports A for overall, bufferbloat and quality with similar test results and idle % to speedtest.net. All these observations were with QoS enabled.

pythonic
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.11.0 for ipq806x architecture routers

Postby pythonic » Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:33 am

Expanding on the potential for running out of CPU cycles, I came across some OpenWrt references to the default settings of the CPU frequency scaling governor affecting throughput by not upscaling quickly enough, notably on the R7800 - see discussions in OpenWrt forum threads here and also here.

It might be worth it to try setting the scaling governor to "performance" on both cores to see whether that helps. I've checked my D7800 and the relevant CPU frequency scaling infrastructure is there, but I don't have any practical way of testing it.

pythonic
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.11.0 for ipq806x architecture routers

Postby pythonic » Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:41 am

I didn't think my link would be fast enough to see any difference in idle time with the scaling governor set to performance, but I just tried it out on the D7800 and it does have a measurable effect on CPU utilisation in speed test results (both to dslreports.com and speedtest.net) with download now showing 92-95% idle and upload showing 97-98% idle (compared to ~85% and ~95% respectively). Actual throughput didn't improve but there did seem to be a marginal improvement in the ping variation for the dslreports.com tests.

mlira1
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:31 pm

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.11.0 for ipq806x architecture routers

Postby mlira1 » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:42 am

pythonic wrote:Expanding on the potential for running out of CPU cycles, I came across some OpenWrt references to the default settings of the CPU frequency scaling governor affecting throughput by not upscaling quickly enough, notably on the R7800 - see discussions in OpenWrt forum threads here and also here.

It might be worth it to try setting the scaling governor to "performance" on both cores to see whether that helps. I've checked my D7800 and the relevant CPU frequency scaling infrastructure is there, but I don't have any practical way of testing it.


Indeed! I forgot about that, will try it out later today. On OpenWRT, performance also seems to improve by manually assigning interrupt requests to the 2nd core. The default behavior is assigning most main IRQs to a single core.

mlira1
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:31 pm

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.11.0 for ipq806x architecture routers

Postby mlira1 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:00 am

MUCH better results now! (R7800, 300/150 fiber)

Image

In order to achieve it, I added the following on /etc/rc.local

Code: Select all

echo 2 > /proc/irq/31/smp_affinity

echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy1/scaling_governor

echo 800000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/scaling_max_freq
echo 800000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy1/scaling_max_freq

sleep 1

echo 1750000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/scaling_max_freq
echo 1750000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy1/scaling_max_freq


Thanks for the input phytonic!

pythonic
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.11.0 for ipq806x architecture routers

Postby pythonic » Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:24 am

Glad to hear that you're now able to use nearly all your WAN bandwidth!

It is interesting though - and a little disappointing - that the upload throughput didn't gain proportionally as much as the download throughput...

BTW, is this with ACC enabled?

Lantis
Moderator
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:33 am
Location: Australia

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.11.0 for ipq806x architecture routers

Postby Lantis » Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:16 pm

I'll be looking to include this target with Gargoyle 1.13.x
Routers: Various ar71xx/mvebu/x86-64
http://lantisproject.com/downloads/gargoyle_ispyisail.php for the latest releases

pythonic
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Experimental build of Gargoyle 1.11.0 for ipq806x architecture routers

Postby pythonic » Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:37 am

Lantis wrote:I'll be looking to include this target with Gargoyle 1.13.x

Thanks!


Return to “Show / Tell / Contribute”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests