From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1YYxvS-0006BM-P9 for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:29:27 +0000 Received: by wibgn9 with SMTP id gn9so16062169wib.1 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 07:29:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Wunderlich Subject: Re: Re: IBSS support in ath10k - our test results and questions Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:26:21 +0100 Message-ID: <1799837.1jGie9QosO@prime> In-Reply-To: <550B425A.7090505@candelatech.com> References: <2680922.jiTnlqor3W@prime> <550B425A.7090505@candelatech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Ben Greear Cc: sven@open-mesh.com, marek@open-mesh.com, ath10k@lists.infradead.org On Thursday 19 March 2015 14:40:42 Ben Greear wrote: > On 03/19/2015 10:06 AM, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > > [...] > > * We see low throughput when communicating via IBSS between 2x ath10k or > > 1x > > > > ath9k + 1x ath10k (~30 MiBit/s). With HT we would have expected ~150 > > MBit/s, with VHT even more. > > Do you see this problem with only an IBSS interface? In other words, is my > firmware worse at this than stock 999.x firmware in same configuration? Yes, we used your firmware with only one IBSS interface. And yes, in our tests your firmware performed worse - with stock 999.x firmware we saw 70-90 Mbit/s, which was also not great, but way better. Also in that case we saw that aggregation was enabled. The AP+IBSS concurrently was another test. As also mentioned originally, 999.x firmware is not an option for us since we will eventually need AP and IBSS at the same time. > > Thanks for all the details... Sounds like you have done more testing on > this than I have for sure. We want to integrate IBSS mode into products, so we have to test thoroughly. :) If you also want to focus on IBSS, we would be happy to collaborate and test. > > In case you have a public kernel tree available somewhere with all your > patches, that might help speed up someone's attempt to reproduce this? We currently don't have it. I'll ask if we can publish it. Our work was based on a backports release on the mac80211 package in OpenWRT, though, so don't expect a kernel tree. :) Thanks, Simon _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k