From: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
To: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>
Cc: Francesco Gringoli <francesco.gringoli@ing.unibs.it>,
Lorenzo Nava <navalorenx@gmail.com>,
wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Latest test with open-source firmware
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:46:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200902251846.31531.mb@bu3sch.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49A56B1F.80702@lwfinger.net>
On Wednesday 25 February 2009 17:00:31 Larry Finger wrote:
> Francesco and Lorenzo,
>
> In my latest test, I cut the RX and TX queue depths to 32 and ran my usual
> stress test. This time I logged whenever there was an increase in the depth of
> the txstatus queue, and whenever the queue depth was 16. The results were as
> follows:
>
> Feb 24 19:27:08 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 2
> Feb 24 19:27:12 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 3
> Feb 24 19:27:12 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 4
> Feb 24 19:27:12 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 5
> Feb 24 19:27:12 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 6
> Feb 24 19:27:12 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 7
> Feb 24 19:27:12 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 8
> Feb 24 19:27:12 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 9
> Feb 24 19:27:12 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 10
> Feb 24 19:28:46 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 11
> Feb 25 00:07:19 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 12
> Feb 25 00:07:19 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 13
> Feb 25 00:09:12 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 14
> Feb 25 00:09:50 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 15
> Feb 25 00:09:50 mtech kernel: b43: Max Queue depth is now 16
> Feb 25 00:09:50 mtech kernel: b43: Max queue depth at 16
> Feb 25 00:09:54 mtech kernel: b43: Max queue depth at 16
> Feb 25 00:10:55 mtech kernel: b43: Max queue depth at 16
> Feb 25 00:26:24 mtech kernel: eth1: No ProbeResp from current AP
> 00:1a:70:46:ba:b1 - assume out of range
>
> The 00:26:24 event was the interface going offline. That happens with
> proprietary firmware, thus I think that problem is with the driver, rather than
> the firmware.
Are you sure it's a problem at all and not just simply failure to deliver
certain important management frames due to _extreme_ queue pressure?
Especially the tight RX queue will have effects like dropped frames.
--
Greetings, Michael.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-25 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-25 16:00 Latest test with open-source firmware Larry Finger
2009-02-25 17:46 ` Michael Buesch [this message]
2009-02-25 18:35 ` Larry Finger
2009-02-25 18:36 ` Michael Buesch
2009-02-25 21:30 ` Francesco Gringoli
2009-02-26 0:31 ` Larry Finger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200902251846.31531.mb@bu3sch.de \
--to=mb@bu3sch.de \
--cc=Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net \
--cc=francesco.gringoli@ing.unibs.it \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=navalorenx@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.