Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:16:57 +0800
From:      Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To:        Berislav Purgar <bpurgar@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [patch] if_ath_tx: change interrupt scheduling deferral
Message-ID:  <CAJ-VmokMvNiHe_XjoSNFfsnnY1%2BfdmaepsN8gqz8yRLvz=sysQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAUsrB4KYaH-uyG_1BiGywZ%2BGOP%2BmBpnw3UO15c767vfQmC5BA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAJ-VmoknpF_RhiXWL07GSOqWoHpy3L5Ma4kCptHq9MtfbfPO8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAAUsrB4KYaH-uyG_1BiGywZ%2BGOP%2BmBpnw3UO15c767vfQmC5BA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11 September 2011 00:48, Berislav Purgar <bpurgar@gmail.com> wrote:

> i tested new patches and can tell that works ok. i don't see any error
> messages=A0 in logfile for both cards (high trafic load). regarding to
> anything i tested (HT20/40) iperf shows

Sweet.

> TCP ~ 9.8MB/s=A0 UPD ~ 13MB/s=A0 on HT/20 .
> TCP ~ 13MB/s=A0=A0 UDP ~ 19.7MB/s on HT/40
>
> this results are when AR5416 act as iperf server and AR9280 as client, in
> another case results are worse.
> AR5416 works in sta and AR9280 in hostap mode.
> that's all for now :)

Yeah; things get a bit unpredictable at times. I'll do some further
digging to try and understand why.
I still think it's a dodgy mix of issues with periodic calibration and
rate control.

I'm still working out the kinks with my current patch. I'll post
another one shortly for you (and others!) to try.

Finally, have you seen any device timeouts? Or odd traffic hangs?

Thanks,


Adrian



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmokMvNiHe_XjoSNFfsnnY1%2BfdmaepsN8gqz8yRLvz=sysQ>