All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Subject: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH RFC] ath9k: collect statistics about Rx-Dup and Rx-STBC packets
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:08:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <517D3B50.6070806@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <517D3840.2060000@candelatech.com>

On 2013-04-28 4:54 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 04/28/2013 05:51 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> On 2013-04-27 5:25 PM, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>>> Collect statistics about recived duplicate and STBC packets.
>>> This information should help see if STBC is actually working.
>>>
>>> Tested on ar9285;
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de>
>> I thought about this patch some more, and I'm wondering what's the point
>> in doing this? These statistics are going to be completely useless for
>> most people and they'll waste some memory/cpu cycles, especially on
>> small-cache devices. I think it's much more useful to simply pass the
>> information to mac80211 via rx flags and get them added to the radiotap
>> header.
>> I'd like to keep the number of 'poor man's debug hacks' in the driver to
>> a minimum, and there are some other things that I think should be
>> removed: rx_frags and rx_beacons in struct ath_rx_stats, the tx/rx MAC
>> sampling hack, and pretty much anything else that can be just as easily
>> accessed from mac80211 through regular interfaces.
> 
> Does that mean we can just put the stats in mac80211, or do we have
> to be running a sniffer to gather the stats?
Right now you'd have to use a sniffer, but if you really care about
getting specific stats it might make sense to write a kernel module that
attaches to a monitor interface and gathers them (maybe even with
support for gathering arbitrary stats by attaching bpf filters).

The problem I have with the current stats is they're just an arbitrary
collection of random stuff that is probably useless for 99% of all
users. In many cases the way the stats are collected also makes the data
completely meaningless (e.g. because the source/destination address is
not taken into account).

Why care about the number of packets on the air that were sent with a
specific rate flag? Why care about the number of beacons on the air
(with no filter on a set of APs or anything)? Or what about the number
of fragments received? To me it just looks like an incoherent set of
useless facts.

- Felix

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Cc: Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de>,
	ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH RFC] ath9k: collect statistics about Rx-Dup and Rx-STBC packets
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:08:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <517D3B50.6070806@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <517D3840.2060000@candelatech.com>

On 2013-04-28 4:54 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 04/28/2013 05:51 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> On 2013-04-27 5:25 PM, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>>> Collect statistics about recived duplicate and STBC packets.
>>> This information should help see if STBC is actually working.
>>>
>>> Tested on ar9285;
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de>
>> I thought about this patch some more, and I'm wondering what's the point
>> in doing this? These statistics are going to be completely useless for
>> most people and they'll waste some memory/cpu cycles, especially on
>> small-cache devices. I think it's much more useful to simply pass the
>> information to mac80211 via rx flags and get them added to the radiotap
>> header.
>> I'd like to keep the number of 'poor man's debug hacks' in the driver to
>> a minimum, and there are some other things that I think should be
>> removed: rx_frags and rx_beacons in struct ath_rx_stats, the tx/rx MAC
>> sampling hack, and pretty much anything else that can be just as easily
>> accessed from mac80211 through regular interfaces.
> 
> Does that mean we can just put the stats in mac80211, or do we have
> to be running a sniffer to gather the stats?
Right now you'd have to use a sniffer, but if you really care about
getting specific stats it might make sense to write a kernel module that
attaches to a monitor interface and gathers them (maybe even with
support for gathering arbitrary stats by attaching bpf filters).

The problem I have with the current stats is they're just an arbitrary
collection of random stuff that is probably useless for 99% of all
users. In many cases the way the stats are collected also makes the data
completely meaningless (e.g. because the source/destination address is
not taken into account).

Why care about the number of packets on the air that were sent with a
specific rate flag? Why care about the number of beacons on the air
(with no filter on a set of APs or anything)? Or what about the number
of fragments received? To me it just looks like an incoherent set of
useless facts.

- Felix

  reply	other threads:[~2013-04-28 15:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-04-27 15:25 [ath9k-devel] [PATCH RFC] ath9k: collect statistics about Rx-Dup and Rx-STBC packets Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-27 15:25 ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-27 18:39 ` [ath9k-devel] [PATCH v2] " Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-27 18:39   ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-27 18:51   ` [ath9k-devel] " Adrian Chadd
2013-04-27 18:51     ` Adrian Chadd
2013-04-27 18:53     ` [ath9k-devel] " Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-27 18:53       ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-27 19:06       ` [ath9k-devel] " Adrian Chadd
2013-04-27 19:06         ` Adrian Chadd
2013-04-27 19:13         ` [ath9k-devel] " Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-27 19:13           ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-28  1:21         ` [ath9k-devel] " Felix Fietkau
2013-04-28  1:21           ` Felix Fietkau
2013-04-28  6:41 ` [ath9k-devel] [PATCH v3] " Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-28  6:41   ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-28 12:51 ` [ath9k-devel] [PATCH RFC] " Felix Fietkau
2013-04-28 12:51   ` Felix Fietkau
2013-04-28 14:13   ` [ath9k-devel] " Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-28 14:13     ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-28 15:03     ` [ath9k-devel] " Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-28 15:03       ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-28 19:19       ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-28 19:19         ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-28 19:20         ` Felix Fietkau
2013-04-28 19:20           ` Felix Fietkau
2013-04-29  6:45       ` Wojciech Dubowik
2013-04-29  6:45         ` Wojciech Dubowik
2013-04-29  7:20         ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-29  7:20           ` Oleksij Rempel
2013-04-28 14:54   ` Ben Greear
2013-04-28 14:54     ` Ben Greear
2013-04-28 15:08     ` Felix Fietkau [this message]
2013-04-28 15:08       ` Felix Fietkau
2013-04-28 15:15       ` Ben Greear
2013-04-28 15:15         ` Ben Greear
2013-04-28 15:32         ` Felix Fietkau
2013-04-28 15:32           ` Felix Fietkau
2013-05-08  5:32       ` Sujith Manoharan
2013-05-08  5:32         ` Sujith Manoharan
2013-05-08 16:07         ` Ben Greear
2013-05-08 16:07           ` Ben Greear
2013-05-08 22:45           ` Adrian Chadd
2013-05-08 22:45             ` Adrian Chadd

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=517D3B50.6070806@openwrt.org \
    --to=nbd@openwrt.org \
    --cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
    /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.