From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: TCP performance regression Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:11:46 -0800 Message-ID: <52812BF2.7090605@candelatech.com> References: <21120.27501.32323.332316@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1384149326.16391.10.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <21120.29720.673157.151074@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1384152853.16391.19.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <21120.37647.979237.40802@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1384180069.16391.32.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <21121.575.539384.948990@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <52810800.9020402@openwrt.org> <1384191515.16391.49.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , Felix Fietkau , Sujith Manoharan , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Avery Pennarun To: Dave Taht Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:50477 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754301Ab3KKTL4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:11:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/11/2013 10:31 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > Ah, this thread started with a huge regression in ath10k performance > with the new TSQ stuff, and isn't actually about a two line fix to the > mv ethernet driver. > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/290269 > > I suddenly care a lot more. And I'll care a lot, lot, lot more, if > someone can post a rrul test for before and after the new fq scheduler > and tsq change on this driver on this hardware... What, if anything, > in terms of improvements or regressions, happened to multi-stream > throughput and latency? > > https://github.com/tohojo/netperf-wrapper Not directly related, but we have run some automated tests against an older buffer-bloat enabled AP (not ath10k hardware, don't know the exact details at the moment), and in general the performance is horrible compared to all of the other APs we test against. Our tests are concerned mostly with throughput. For reference, here are some graphs with supplicant/hostapd running on higher-end x86-64 hardware and ath9k: http://www.candelatech.com/lf_wifi_examples.php We see somewhat similar results with most commercial APs, though often they max out at 128 or fewer stations instead of the several hundred we get on our own AP configs. We'll update to more recent buffer-bloat AP software and post some results when we get a chance. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com