* Slow connect times? @ 2014-11-04 1:04 Ben Greear 2014-11-04 1:35 ` Avery Pennarun 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ben Greear @ 2014-11-04 1:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ath10k If I am reading my results right, it takes over 2 seconds to associate an ath10k station with WPA2 PSK on my systems. I was thinking this should be quite a bit faster than this... Has anyone done any similar measurements? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Slow connect times? 2014-11-04 1:04 Slow connect times? Ben Greear @ 2014-11-04 1:35 ` Avery Pennarun 2014-11-04 2:45 ` Ben Greear 2014-11-05 17:39 ` Ben Greear 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Avery Pennarun @ 2014-11-04 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Greear; +Cc: ath10k On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote: > If I am reading my results right, it takes over 2 seconds to associate an > ath10k station with WPA2 PSK on my systems. > > I was thinking this should be quite a bit faster than this... > > Has anyone done any similar measurements? I haven't noticed any delay like this. WPA2 PSK negotiation is on the order of ~200ms or less. Then DHCP screws around for a few seconds, often. A packet trace would probably be useful for narrowing it down :) _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Slow connect times? 2014-11-04 1:35 ` Avery Pennarun @ 2014-11-04 2:45 ` Ben Greear 2014-11-05 17:39 ` Ben Greear 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Ben Greear @ 2014-11-04 2:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Avery Pennarun; +Cc: ath10k On 11/03/2014 05:35 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote: >> If I am reading my results right, it takes over 2 seconds to associate an >> ath10k station with WPA2 PSK on my systems. >> >> I was thinking this should be quite a bit faster than this... >> >> Has anyone done any similar measurements? > > I haven't noticed any delay like this. WPA2 PSK negotiation is on the > order of ~200ms or less. Then DHCP screws around for a few seconds, > often. > > A packet trace would probably be useful for narrowing it down :) Could be something weird with my setup. I'll dig into it some more sometime soon. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Slow connect times? 2014-11-04 1:35 ` Avery Pennarun 2014-11-04 2:45 ` Ben Greear @ 2014-11-05 17:39 ` Ben Greear 2014-11-05 18:58 ` Avery Pennarun 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ben Greear @ 2014-11-05 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Avery Pennarun; +Cc: ath10k On 11/03/2014 05:35 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote: >> If I am reading my results right, it takes over 2 seconds to associate an >> ath10k station with WPA2 PSK on my systems. >> >> I was thinking this should be quite a bit faster than this... >> >> Has anyone done any similar measurements? > > I haven't noticed any delay like this. WPA2 PSK negotiation is on the > order of ~200ms or less. Then DHCP screws around for a few seconds, > often. > > A packet trace would probably be useful for narrowing it down :) > First part of my problem is that I had some extra debugging turned on and that was being sent to serial console, which is slow. But, even with that off I am still seeing ~200ms at best. Ath9k system on crappy old Atom processors usually completes in less than 20ms for comparison. Off to go spelunking in the ath10k code :P Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Slow connect times? 2014-11-05 17:39 ` Ben Greear @ 2014-11-05 18:58 ` Avery Pennarun 2014-11-05 19:03 ` Ben Greear 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Avery Pennarun @ 2014-11-05 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Greear; +Cc: ath10k On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote: > On 11/03/2014 05:35 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote: >>> If I am reading my results right, it takes over 2 seconds to associate an >>> ath10k station with WPA2 PSK on my systems. >>> >>> I was thinking this should be quite a bit faster than this... >>> >>> Has anyone done any similar measurements? >> >> I haven't noticed any delay like this. WPA2 PSK negotiation is on the >> order of ~200ms or less. Then DHCP screws around for a few seconds, >> often. >> >> A packet trace would probably be useful for narrowing it down :) > > First part of my problem is that I had some extra debugging turned on and > that was being sent to serial console, which is slow. > > But, even with that off I am still seeing ~200ms at best. > > Ath9k system on crappy old Atom processors usually completes in > less than 20ms for comparison. > > Off to go spelunking in the ath10k code :P That's very interesting for me. 200ms was kind of a worst case in my traces, and I'm mostly seeing 20-40ms. I think the key exchange is all hostapd, so I'm surprised it would take so long. Do you have a trace? Note that I *have* seen weird problems with delayed probe packets to some clients, which could cause things like this. But that's apparently only because I applied Michal's patch to get rid of queue blocking :) _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Slow connect times? 2014-11-05 18:58 ` Avery Pennarun @ 2014-11-05 19:03 ` Ben Greear 2014-11-05 19:12 ` Avery Pennarun 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ben Greear @ 2014-11-05 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Avery Pennarun; +Cc: ath10k On 11/05/2014 10:58 AM, Avery Pennarun wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote: >> On 11/03/2014 05:35 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote: >>>> If I am reading my results right, it takes over 2 seconds to associate an >>>> ath10k station with WPA2 PSK on my systems. >>>> >>>> I was thinking this should be quite a bit faster than this... >>>> >>>> Has anyone done any similar measurements? >>> >>> I haven't noticed any delay like this. WPA2 PSK negotiation is on the >>> order of ~200ms or less. Then DHCP screws around for a few seconds, >>> often. >>> >>> A packet trace would probably be useful for narrowing it down :) >> >> First part of my problem is that I had some extra debugging turned on and >> that was being sent to serial console, which is slow. >> >> But, even with that off I am still seeing ~200ms at best. >> >> Ath9k system on crappy old Atom processors usually completes in >> less than 20ms for comparison. >> >> Off to go spelunking in the ath10k code :P > > That's very interesting for me. 200ms was kind of a worst case in my > traces, and I'm mostly seeing 20-40ms. I think the key exchange is > all hostapd, so I'm surprised it would take so long. Do you have a > trace? > > Note that I *have* seen weird problems with delayed probe packets to > some clients, which could cause things like this. But that's > apparently only because I applied Michal's patch to get rid of queue > blocking :) > My first station comes up in ~20ms, the second one (on same machine) takes ~200ms. If I try bringing up 10 as fast as supplicant can do it's thing, then it takes around 1 sec for each station. Does not appear to be an AP problem, as ath9k stations to the ath10k AP are all in the 20ms range. I'm updating my test systems Fedora 20 to have easier use of some debugging tools and will then start figuring out where the slowness is. I'm running my firmware with patches that should help with flush related problems, but that is still my first suspect! Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Slow connect times? 2014-11-05 19:03 ` Ben Greear @ 2014-11-05 19:12 ` Avery Pennarun 2014-11-06 0:49 ` Ben Greear 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Avery Pennarun @ 2014-11-05 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Greear; +Cc: ath10k On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote: > Does not appear to be an AP problem, as ath9k stations to the ath10k AP are all > in the 20ms range. Ah, ok, I just assumed you were using ath10k as an AP. In that case I know nothing :) _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Slow connect times? 2014-11-05 19:12 ` Avery Pennarun @ 2014-11-06 0:49 ` Ben Greear 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Ben Greear @ 2014-11-06 0:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Avery Pennarun; +Cc: ath10k On 11/05/2014 11:12 AM, Avery Pennarun wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote: >> Does not appear to be an AP problem, as ath9k stations to the ath10k AP are all >> in the 20ms range. > > Ah, ok, I just assumed you were using ath10k as an AP. In that case I > know nothing :) > Ahhh, found the problem. Firmware was trying to be helpful and reserve the channel on vdev-start. But, took it 200+ms to grab the reservation when another vdev exists, and it shouldn't be needed anyway as far as I can tell. Disabled that 'feature' by hacking on driver a bit to pass a new flag to modified firmware to tell it to ignore the reservation logic, and now a second station vdev associates in about 6-8 ms :) Take it easy, Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-11-06 0:49 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-11-04 1:04 Slow connect times? Ben Greear 2014-11-04 1:35 ` Avery Pennarun 2014-11-04 2:45 ` Ben Greear 2014-11-05 17:39 ` Ben Greear 2014-11-05 18:58 ` Avery Pennarun 2014-11-05 19:03 ` Ben Greear 2014-11-05 19:12 ` Avery Pennarun 2014-11-06 0:49 ` Ben Greear
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.