Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:46:08 +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-VmokwZd-dZU1-ZVOOx1gfLk6KWb0oUDZU4du4oKbS0aFzTw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAAUsrB5vPo=WeLNW0AV-8AFG%2BgqLMtsLHMX%2BHMdPj6QGechw-g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-VmoknpF_RhiXWL07GSOqWoHpy3L5Ma4kCptHq9MtfbfPO8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAAUsrB4KYaH-uyG_1BiGywZ%2BGOP%2BmBpnw3UO15c767vfQmC5BA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmokMvNiHe_XjoSNFfsnnY1%2BfdmaepsN8gqz8yRLvz=sysQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAUsrB5_EDJECAMfS5qrAjPXzmW-0y8vgHd=5C18H=gyqebT3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmokMRXmonkxz9XoS6%2BmT_qa2UD4TvHQLz_HX-K07XSDu9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAAUsrB5FYpPTcT5R0Oh99G_rdzfDJvuBLuiJ%2Bo5jK-hNfQviGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmokwa3j_pa4bWuDByxzkOBZ5vdW9eEgCwCq=6S=mE649Yg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAUsrB5vPo=WeLNW0AV-8AFG%2BgqLMtsLHMX%2BHMdPj6QGechw-g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13 September 2011 18:14, Berislav Purgar <bpurgar@gmail.com> wrote: > channel 6:ht/20 > > AR5416(iperf -c) ---> AR9280(iperf -s) i get TCP ~ 9MB/s UDP ~ 13MB/s > AR9280(iperf -c) ---> AR5416(iperf -s) i get TCP ~ 4MB/s UDP ~ 8MB/s Hm, 90/130 mbit; that's what it should be. But I wonder why it's so bad one way. Time to do a bit of debugging. > channel 6:ht/40 > > AR5416(iperf -c) ----> AR9280(iperf -s) i get TCP ~ 7MB/s UDP ~ 10MB/s > AR9280(ipef -c) ----> AR5416(iperf -s) i get TCP ~ 15MB/s UDP ~ 24MB/s Nice. :) > after testing it in both direction i look at log files and found these error > on AR5416 side > > Sep 13 11:54:25 rut kernel: ath0: device timeout > Sep 13 11:54:25 rut kernel: ath0: ath_tx_tid_drain: node 0xc421e000: tid 0: > txq_ > depth=0, txq_aggr_depth=0, sched=1, paused=1, hwq_depth=0, incomp=0, > baw_head=0, > baw_tail=0 txa_start=395, ni_txseqs=5266 > Sep 13 11:54:30 rut kernel: ath0: device timeout > Sep 13 11:54:30 rut kernel: ath0: ath_tx_tid_drain: node 0xc421e000: tid 0: > txq_ > depth=0, txq_aggr_depth=0, sched=1, paused=1, hwq_depth=0, incomp=0, > baw_head=0, > baw_tail=0 txa_start=51382, ni_txseqs=51383 > > > and on AR9280 > > Sep 13 11:55:34 pila kernel: ath2: device timeout > Sep 13 11:55:34 pila kernel: ath2: ath_tx_tid_drain: node 0xc3065000: tid 0: > txq > _depth=0, txq_aggr_depth=0, sched=1, paused=1, hwq_depth=0, incomp=0, > baw_head=0 > , baw_tail=0 txa_start=2826, ni_txseqs=4496 > Sep 13 11:55:39 pila kernel: ath2: device timeout > Sep 13 11:55:39 pila kernel: ath2: ath_tx_tid_drain: node 0xc3065000: tid 0: > txq > _depth=0, txq_aggr_depth=0, sched=1, paused=1, hwq_depth=0, incomp=0, > baw_head=0 > , baw_tail=0 txa_start=42270, ni_txseqs=42271 There shouldn't be errors on the AR5416, unless that chip also has the errant behaviour. I know the AR9280. Are you able to try the previous svn revision (from a couple days ago) and see if they have errors? I think I now know what the problem is, I'll work on trying to fix it. Also, paused=1 is a bit odd. I'll have to do some digging. The good news is that I do have an AR5416/AR9280 combination to test with. I'll just have to whack the AR5416 in a hostap mips board. Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmokwZd-dZU1-ZVOOx1gfLk6KWb0oUDZU4du4oKbS0aFzTw>