Compiling now, will report back.
is ok now, I have around 200 clients on test and the value is ~2000 and earlier by this time would be ~14000
Thanks for testing
I think it is fixed for me as well. I have far less clients, so it takes a bit longer to really show. But it's looking much better than it did before after 1 hour of up-time. Thank you very much for your work :)!
Edit: Definitely fixed for me as well. Thanks again 
The fix also seems to work for me, no huge amount of active connections anymore after ±16 hours of testing with ± 10 devices
Is anyone seeing quite a bit higher CPU usage with hw flow offloading enabled with the latest master branch? Not sure whether it is one of these fixes or the "kernel: allow hardware NAT offload drivers to keep a priv pointer" commit. I remember only seeing >95% idle CPU at all times during speedtests, while now I can see <85% idle values. Not sure if I am miss remembering things or if there is a performance regression. Either way, it's just a minor thing since I am still easily able to max out the connection.
One other thing that I find strange is that I am seeing a much higher CPU utilization when I bridge two ports with two different VLANs together in my LAN bridge and run an iperf3 test from one computer connected to the first port, while a second computer connected to the second port, compared to similar speeds over WAN. Does flow offload only apply to connections to/from WAN?
Edit: I know I can simply put both ports on the same VLAN and let the switch handle the traffic for 0% CPU utilization. But I am just playing around with this new feature to learn more about it. And the fact it doesn't seem to work on LAN <-> LAN has me confused.
With the latest commits Flow Offload work even most stable in my environment (x86_64 CPU). My VPN connection is really most stable and little faster. Especially considering that my connection is via public WiFi, and the AP of my ISP is approximately 500m away, in a central area saturated with wireless networks.
Thanks @nbd for your work.
PD: Why wireless driver in OpenWrt Master Branch is stalled in a version date from November 2017?
Flow offload doesn’t work (yet) in combination with SQM. But reading this http://blog.cerowrt.org/post/bbrs_basic_beauty/ it seems that TCP BBR is getting close. I know there is a thread discussion BBR, but will this work together with HW Offload so we can keep PPPoE offload and have BBR do it’s thing? This will give us the best of both worlds?? Then adding HW QoS to e.g. prioritize VOIP should get things pretty close to “perfect”.
“Perfect” is of course a relative term given the SoC/hardware we are using. Running everything on a Xeon/i7 type of processor will be “more perfect”
BBR will only do its thing at the endpoints of a TCP connection, as it is a tcp congestion control algorithm it will not be useful on a (pure) router, unless you use your router as a server that terminates TCP connections.
using a device,which connect to r7800's lan port,as an iperf3 server,and r7800 as an iperf3 client,using tcp bbr,I got very slow speed.
Flow Offload work perfect with SQM, Hardware Flow Offload not yet.
Sorry I was lazy typing flow offload vs "flow offload / hw nat". The HW part is what I'm interested in, HW QoS as well. I understand the difference between shaping and policy but if we can't have (yet) shaping and use HW offload NAT and QoS, then I prefer policy over no HW. This depends obviously on different peoples use cases. (I'm on a fiber connection with PPPoE)
Is there a list that shows which devices/chipsets are supported by the HW NAT in particular?
I am using the software flow offload at the moment and am hesitant to enable HW NAT just yet. In particular, I am curious about WRT3200ACM but also would be good to see if there was a general list of supported hardware, athough I understand all of this is still quite preliminary. Thank you.
Only mt7621 is supported at this time.
1 Like
I tested SW flowoffload on my R6300v2 and it made little difference.
With offloading off I got 330Mbps of WAN to LAN throughput, while with offloading on I got 360Mbps. In both cases top command showed >95% of sirq
Is your internet connection using PPPoE by any chance? I didn't notice a big difference either with SW flowoffload on my PPPoE connection. HW flowoffload did help immensely because the PPPoE encapsulation/decapsulation could also be offloaded.
I made the test with two PCs, so it's static IP/DHCP
my patch fix this:
1 Like