* Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix survey information reporting
@ 2015-06-05 19:22 ` Ben Greear
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Ben Greear @ 2015-06-05 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: YanBo; +Cc: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan, ath10k, linux-wireless
On 06/05/2015 12:10 PM, YanBo wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>> I applied these and some other related patches to my hacked-upon 4.0.4, but
>> I am seeing some inconsistencies between how ath10k and ath9k
>> reports survey info. I am using my CT firmware based on 10.1.
>>
>> ath9k reports ever-increasing counters for the channel time
>> and busy time.
>>
>> With ath10k, it reports the same values until I do a scan
>> again, and even then, it is not additive.
>>
>> First, should the value only update when we do a scan?
>>
>> And second, should ath10k report ever increasing totals
>> to match ath9k behaviour?
>>
>
> It should be match with ath9k, but the ath10k doesn't accumulate the
> survey count at currently code,
> I drafted a patch to fix this issue, will send to public mailist soon.
I notice you can get current cycle stats out of the pdev stats as well,
and those update every time you ask firmware for stats.
It won't be 100% accurate because you don't know when firmware
was off-channel or not, but I guess it will be better for me than
nothing. I certainly don't want to be scanning all the time,
but grabbing firmware stats already happens when you get ethtool
stats, so as long as I poll often enough to catch wraps, I think it
will be good enough.
I guess to get really accurate values, one would have to hack the
firmware to keep its own accumulated stats and properly deal with
channel changes.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix survey information reporting
2015-06-05 19:22 ` Ben Greear
@ 2015-06-05 20:18 ` Ben Greear
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Ben Greear @ 2015-06-05 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: YanBo; +Cc: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan, linux-wireless, ath10k
I think the wrapping might be even more weird that previously suspected. Here is output from my
system.
It looks to me that when cycle count overflows, it right-shifts all of these
counters one bit. Clever, I guess, but surely a pain in the ass to deal with!
while true; do cat /debug/ieee80211/wiphy0/ath10k/fw_stats|head -10|tail -4; date; echo;sleep 1; done
....
TX frame count 131810463
RX frame count 2326362883
RX clear count 2542947851
Cycle count 4180338939
Fri Jun 5 13:13:48 PDT 2015
TX frame count 134407497
RX frame count 2374518035
RX clear count 2595337341
Cycle count 4269010333
Fri Jun 5 13:13:49 PDT 2015
TX frame count 69523007
RX frame count 1229973316
RX clear count 1344131636
Cycle count 2210412416
Fri Jun 5 13:13:50 PDT 2015
TX frame count 72305753
RX frame count 1280184579
RX clear count 1398937635
Cycle count 2299234941
Fri Jun 5 13:13:51 PDT 2015
TX frame count 75050021
RX frame count 1330205664
RX clear count 1453548082
Cycle count 2387901854
Fri Jun 5 13:13:52 PDT 2015
Thanks,
Ben
On 06/05/2015 12:22 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 06/05/2015 12:10 PM, YanBo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>> I applied these and some other related patches to my hacked-upon 4.0.4, but
>>> I am seeing some inconsistencies between how ath10k and ath9k
>>> reports survey info. I am using my CT firmware based on 10.1.
>>>
>>> ath9k reports ever-increasing counters for the channel time
>>> and busy time.
>>>
>>> With ath10k, it reports the same values until I do a scan
>>> again, and even then, it is not additive.
>>>
>>> First, should the value only update when we do a scan?
>>>
>>> And second, should ath10k report ever increasing totals
>>> to match ath9k behaviour?
>>>
>>
>> It should be match with ath9k, but the ath10k doesn't accumulate the
>> survey count at currently code,
>> I drafted a patch to fix this issue, will send to public mailist soon.
>
> I notice you can get current cycle stats out of the pdev stats as well,
> and those update every time you ask firmware for stats.
>
> It won't be 100% accurate because you don't know when firmware
> was off-channel or not, but I guess it will be better for me than
> nothing. I certainly don't want to be scanning all the time,
> but grabbing firmware stats already happens when you get ethtool
> stats, so as long as I poll often enough to catch wraps, I think it
> will be good enough.
>
> I guess to get really accurate values, one would have to hack the
> firmware to keep its own accumulated stats and properly deal with
> channel changes.
>
> 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] 20+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix survey information reporting
@ 2015-06-05 20:18 ` Ben Greear
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Ben Greear @ 2015-06-05 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: YanBo; +Cc: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan, ath10k, linux-wireless
I think the wrapping might be even more weird that previously suspected. Here is output from my
system.
It looks to me that when cycle count overflows, it right-shifts all of these
counters one bit. Clever, I guess, but surely a pain in the ass to deal with!
while true; do cat /debug/ieee80211/wiphy0/ath10k/fw_stats|head -10|tail -4; date; echo;sleep 1; done
....
TX frame count 131810463
RX frame count 2326362883
RX clear count 2542947851
Cycle count 4180338939
Fri Jun 5 13:13:48 PDT 2015
TX frame count 134407497
RX frame count 2374518035
RX clear count 2595337341
Cycle count 4269010333
Fri Jun 5 13:13:49 PDT 2015
TX frame count 69523007
RX frame count 1229973316
RX clear count 1344131636
Cycle count 2210412416
Fri Jun 5 13:13:50 PDT 2015
TX frame count 72305753
RX frame count 1280184579
RX clear count 1398937635
Cycle count 2299234941
Fri Jun 5 13:13:51 PDT 2015
TX frame count 75050021
RX frame count 1330205664
RX clear count 1453548082
Cycle count 2387901854
Fri Jun 5 13:13:52 PDT 2015
Thanks,
Ben
On 06/05/2015 12:22 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 06/05/2015 12:10 PM, YanBo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>> I applied these and some other related patches to my hacked-upon 4.0.4, but
>>> I am seeing some inconsistencies between how ath10k and ath9k
>>> reports survey info. I am using my CT firmware based on 10.1.
>>>
>>> ath9k reports ever-increasing counters for the channel time
>>> and busy time.
>>>
>>> With ath10k, it reports the same values until I do a scan
>>> again, and even then, it is not additive.
>>>
>>> First, should the value only update when we do a scan?
>>>
>>> And second, should ath10k report ever increasing totals
>>> to match ath9k behaviour?
>>>
>>
>> It should be match with ath9k, but the ath10k doesn't accumulate the
>> survey count at currently code,
>> I drafted a patch to fix this issue, will send to public mailist soon.
>
> I notice you can get current cycle stats out of the pdev stats as well,
> and those update every time you ask firmware for stats.
>
> It won't be 100% accurate because you don't know when firmware
> was off-channel or not, but I guess it will be better for me than
> nothing. I certainly don't want to be scanning all the time,
> but grabbing firmware stats already happens when you get ethtool
> stats, so as long as I poll often enough to catch wraps, I think it
> will be good enough.
>
> I guess to get really accurate values, one would have to hack the
> firmware to keep its own accumulated stats and properly deal with
> channel changes.
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix survey information reporting
2015-06-05 20:18 ` Ben Greear
@ 2015-06-05 21:00 ` YanBo
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: YanBo @ 2015-06-05 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Greear; +Cc: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan, linux-wireless, ath10k
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> I think the wrapping might be even more weird that previously suspected. Here is output from my
> system.
>
> It looks to me that when cycle count overflows, it right-shifts all of these
> counters one bit. Clever, I guess, but surely a pain in the ass to deal with!
>
>
> while true; do cat /debug/ieee80211/wiphy0/ath10k/fw_stats|head -10|tail -4; date; echo;sleep 1; done
> ....
> TX frame count 131810463
> RX frame count 2326362883
> RX clear count 2542947851
> Cycle count 4180338939
> Fri Jun 5 13:13:48 PDT 2015
>
> TX frame count 134407497
> RX frame count 2374518035
> RX clear count 2595337341
> Cycle count 4269010333
> Fri Jun 5 13:13:49 PDT 2015
>
> TX frame count 69523007
> RX frame count 1229973316
> RX clear count 1344131636
> Cycle count 2210412416
> Fri Jun 5 13:13:50 PDT 2015
>
> TX frame count 72305753
> RX frame count 1280184579
> RX clear count 1398937635
> Cycle count 2299234941
> Fri Jun 5 13:13:51 PDT 2015
>
> TX frame count 75050021
> RX frame count 1330205664
> RX clear count 1453548082
> Cycle count 2387901854
> Fri Jun 5 13:13:52 PDT 2015
>
>
The scan count is 32 bits hence, it will wrap rapidly with 24 seconds
cycle, the new WMI interface will
supply these count in 64 bits to avoid such issue.
BR /Yanbo
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix survey information reporting
@ 2015-06-05 21:00 ` YanBo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: YanBo @ 2015-06-05 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Greear; +Cc: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan, ath10k, linux-wireless
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> I think the wrapping might be even more weird that previously suspected. Here is output from my
> system.
>
> It looks to me that when cycle count overflows, it right-shifts all of these
> counters one bit. Clever, I guess, but surely a pain in the ass to deal with!
>
>
> while true; do cat /debug/ieee80211/wiphy0/ath10k/fw_stats|head -10|tail -4; date; echo;sleep 1; done
> ....
> TX frame count 131810463
> RX frame count 2326362883
> RX clear count 2542947851
> Cycle count 4180338939
> Fri Jun 5 13:13:48 PDT 2015
>
> TX frame count 134407497
> RX frame count 2374518035
> RX clear count 2595337341
> Cycle count 4269010333
> Fri Jun 5 13:13:49 PDT 2015
>
> TX frame count 69523007
> RX frame count 1229973316
> RX clear count 1344131636
> Cycle count 2210412416
> Fri Jun 5 13:13:50 PDT 2015
>
> TX frame count 72305753
> RX frame count 1280184579
> RX clear count 1398937635
> Cycle count 2299234941
> Fri Jun 5 13:13:51 PDT 2015
>
> TX frame count 75050021
> RX frame count 1330205664
> RX clear count 1453548082
> Cycle count 2387901854
> Fri Jun 5 13:13:52 PDT 2015
>
>
The scan count is 32 bits hence, it will wrap rapidly with 24 seconds
cycle, the new WMI interface will
supply these count in 64 bits to avoid such issue.
BR /Yanbo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix survey information reporting
2015-06-05 21:00 ` YanBo
@ 2015-06-05 21:20 ` Ben Greear
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Ben Greear @ 2015-06-05 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: YanBo; +Cc: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan, linux-wireless, ath10k
On 06/05/2015 02:00 PM, YanBo wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>> I think the wrapping might be even more weird that previously suspected. Here is output from my
>> system.
>>
>> It looks to me that when cycle count overflows, it right-shifts all of these
>> counters one bit. Clever, I guess, but surely a pain in the ass to deal with!
>>
>>
>> while true; do cat /debug/ieee80211/wiphy0/ath10k/fw_stats|head -10|tail -4; date; echo;sleep 1; done
>> ....
>> TX frame count 131810463
>> RX frame count 2326362883
>> RX clear count 2542947851
>> Cycle count 4180338939
>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:48 PDT 2015
>>
>> TX frame count 134407497
>> RX frame count 2374518035
>> RX clear count 2595337341
>> Cycle count 4269010333
>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:49 PDT 2015
>>
>> TX frame count 69523007
>> RX frame count 1229973316
>> RX clear count 1344131636
>> Cycle count 2210412416
>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:50 PDT 2015
>>
>> TX frame count 72305753
>> RX frame count 1280184579
>> RX clear count 1398937635
>> Cycle count 2299234941
>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:51 PDT 2015
>>
>> TX frame count 75050021
>> RX frame count 1330205664
>> RX clear count 1453548082
>> Cycle count 2387901854
>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:52 PDT 2015
>>
>>
> The scan count is 32 bits hence, it will wrap rapidly with 24 seconds
> cycle, the new WMI interface will
> supply these count in 64 bits to avoid such issue.
That is not the problem... you can just sample often to resolve that.
The problem is that the other 3 are divided by 2 at time when the main
cycle-counter counter wraps. So as far as I can tell, you cannot
actually calculate precise totals from old and new values for the tx/rx/rx-clear
counters if cycle-counter has wrapped since you last read stats.
Only way I can see to deal with it is to sample often enough that I can
afford to throw away samples where cycle-count wraps. With this implemented,
I see ath10k 'activity' calculation the same as ath9k.
This wrap logic is coming out of the hardware registers as far as I
can tell, so I'm not sure that just firmware changes can really resolve
this fully.
If all they are doing is implementing faster polling in the firmware
itself, that seems like a waste of effort and precious instruction RAM.
Maybe newer hardware will act in a more sane manner so we can deal with
normal 32-bit wraps.
Thanks,
Ben
>
> BR /Yanbo
>
--
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] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix survey information reporting
@ 2015-06-05 21:20 ` Ben Greear
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Ben Greear @ 2015-06-05 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: YanBo; +Cc: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan, ath10k, linux-wireless
On 06/05/2015 02:00 PM, YanBo wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>> I think the wrapping might be even more weird that previously suspected. Here is output from my
>> system.
>>
>> It looks to me that when cycle count overflows, it right-shifts all of these
>> counters one bit. Clever, I guess, but surely a pain in the ass to deal with!
>>
>>
>> while true; do cat /debug/ieee80211/wiphy0/ath10k/fw_stats|head -10|tail -4; date; echo;sleep 1; done
>> ....
>> TX frame count 131810463
>> RX frame count 2326362883
>> RX clear count 2542947851
>> Cycle count 4180338939
>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:48 PDT 2015
>>
>> TX frame count 134407497
>> RX frame count 2374518035
>> RX clear count 2595337341
>> Cycle count 4269010333
>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:49 PDT 2015
>>
>> TX frame count 69523007
>> RX frame count 1229973316
>> RX clear count 1344131636
>> Cycle count 2210412416
>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:50 PDT 2015
>>
>> TX frame count 72305753
>> RX frame count 1280184579
>> RX clear count 1398937635
>> Cycle count 2299234941
>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:51 PDT 2015
>>
>> TX frame count 75050021
>> RX frame count 1330205664
>> RX clear count 1453548082
>> Cycle count 2387901854
>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:52 PDT 2015
>>
>>
> The scan count is 32 bits hence, it will wrap rapidly with 24 seconds
> cycle, the new WMI interface will
> supply these count in 64 bits to avoid such issue.
That is not the problem... you can just sample often to resolve that.
The problem is that the other 3 are divided by 2 at time when the main
cycle-counter counter wraps. So as far as I can tell, you cannot
actually calculate precise totals from old and new values for the tx/rx/rx-clear
counters if cycle-counter has wrapped since you last read stats.
Only way I can see to deal with it is to sample often enough that I can
afford to throw away samples where cycle-count wraps. With this implemented,
I see ath10k 'activity' calculation the same as ath9k.
This wrap logic is coming out of the hardware registers as far as I
can tell, so I'm not sure that just firmware changes can really resolve
this fully.
If all they are doing is implementing faster polling in the firmware
itself, that seems like a waste of effort and precious instruction RAM.
Maybe newer hardware will act in a more sane manner so we can deal with
normal 32-bit wraps.
Thanks,
Ben
>
> BR /Yanbo
>
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix survey information reporting
2015-06-05 21:20 ` Ben Greear
@ 2015-06-05 21:39 ` YanBo
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: YanBo @ 2015-06-05 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Greear; +Cc: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan, linux-wireless, ath10k
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> On 06/05/2015 02:00 PM, YanBo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>> I think the wrapping might be even more weird that previously suspected. Here is output from my
>>> system.
>>>
>>> It looks to me that when cycle count overflows, it right-shifts all of these
>>> counters one bit. Clever, I guess, but surely a pain in the ass to deal with!
>>>
>>>
>>> while true; do cat /debug/ieee80211/wiphy0/ath10k/fw_stats|head -10|tail -4; date; echo;sleep 1; done
>>> ....
>>> TX frame count 131810463
>>> RX frame count 2326362883
>>> RX clear count 2542947851
>>> Cycle count 4180338939
>>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:48 PDT 2015
>>>
>>> TX frame count 134407497
>>> RX frame count 2374518035
>>> RX clear count 2595337341
>>> Cycle count 4269010333
>>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:49 PDT 2015
>>>
>>> TX frame count 69523007
>>> RX frame count 1229973316
>>> RX clear count 1344131636
>>> Cycle count 2210412416
>>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:50 PDT 2015
>>>
>>> TX frame count 72305753
>>> RX frame count 1280184579
>>> RX clear count 1398937635
>>> Cycle count 2299234941
>>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:51 PDT 2015
>>>
>>> TX frame count 75050021
>>> RX frame count 1330205664
>>> RX clear count 1453548082
>>> Cycle count 2387901854
>>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:52 PDT 2015
>>>
>>>
>> The scan count is 32 bits hence, it will wrap rapidly with 24 seconds
>> cycle, the new WMI interface will
>> supply these count in 64 bits to avoid such issue.
>
> That is not the problem... you can just sample often to resolve that.
>
> The problem is that the other 3 are divided by 2 at time when the main
> cycle-counter counter wraps. So as far as I can tell, you cannot
> actually calculate precise totals from old and new values for the tx/rx/rx-clear
> counters if cycle-counter has wrapped since you last read stats.
>
> Only way I can see to deal with it is to sample often enough that I can
> afford to throw away samples where cycle-count wraps. With this implemented,
> I see ath10k 'activity' calculation the same as ath9k.
>
> This wrap logic is coming out of the hardware registers as far as I
> can tell, so I'm not sure that just firmware changes can really resolve
> this fully.
>
> If all they are doing is implementing faster polling in the firmware
> itself, that seems like a waste of effort and precious instruction RAM.
>
Exactly that the FW used to fixed this issue, as it is a HW
limitation, they is no
better way to correct it without faster polling
Thanks
BR /Yanbo
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix survey information reporting
@ 2015-06-05 21:39 ` YanBo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: YanBo @ 2015-06-05 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Greear; +Cc: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan, ath10k, linux-wireless
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> On 06/05/2015 02:00 PM, YanBo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>> I think the wrapping might be even more weird that previously suspected. Here is output from my
>>> system.
>>>
>>> It looks to me that when cycle count overflows, it right-shifts all of these
>>> counters one bit. Clever, I guess, but surely a pain in the ass to deal with!
>>>
>>>
>>> while true; do cat /debug/ieee80211/wiphy0/ath10k/fw_stats|head -10|tail -4; date; echo;sleep 1; done
>>> ....
>>> TX frame count 131810463
>>> RX frame count 2326362883
>>> RX clear count 2542947851
>>> Cycle count 4180338939
>>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:48 PDT 2015
>>>
>>> TX frame count 134407497
>>> RX frame count 2374518035
>>> RX clear count 2595337341
>>> Cycle count 4269010333
>>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:49 PDT 2015
>>>
>>> TX frame count 69523007
>>> RX frame count 1229973316
>>> RX clear count 1344131636
>>> Cycle count 2210412416
>>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:50 PDT 2015
>>>
>>> TX frame count 72305753
>>> RX frame count 1280184579
>>> RX clear count 1398937635
>>> Cycle count 2299234941
>>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:51 PDT 2015
>>>
>>> TX frame count 75050021
>>> RX frame count 1330205664
>>> RX clear count 1453548082
>>> Cycle count 2387901854
>>> Fri Jun 5 13:13:52 PDT 2015
>>>
>>>
>> The scan count is 32 bits hence, it will wrap rapidly with 24 seconds
>> cycle, the new WMI interface will
>> supply these count in 64 bits to avoid such issue.
>
> That is not the problem... you can just sample often to resolve that.
>
> The problem is that the other 3 are divided by 2 at time when the main
> cycle-counter counter wraps. So as far as I can tell, you cannot
> actually calculate precise totals from old and new values for the tx/rx/rx-clear
> counters if cycle-counter has wrapped since you last read stats.
>
> Only way I can see to deal with it is to sample often enough that I can
> afford to throw away samples where cycle-count wraps. With this implemented,
> I see ath10k 'activity' calculation the same as ath9k.
>
> This wrap logic is coming out of the hardware registers as far as I
> can tell, so I'm not sure that just firmware changes can really resolve
> this fully.
>
> If all they are doing is implementing faster polling in the firmware
> itself, that seems like a waste of effort and precious instruction RAM.
>
Exactly that the FW used to fixed this issue, as it is a HW
limitation, they is no
better way to correct it without faster polling
Thanks
BR /Yanbo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix survey information reporting
2015-06-05 19:22 ` Ben Greear
@ 2015-06-05 20:58 ` YanBo
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: YanBo @ 2015-06-05 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Greear; +Cc: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan, linux-wireless, ath10k
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> On 06/05/2015 12:10 PM, YanBo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>> I applied these and some other related patches to my hacked-upon 4.0.4, but
>>> I am seeing some inconsistencies between how ath10k and ath9k
>>> reports survey info. I am using my CT firmware based on 10.1.
>>>
>>> ath9k reports ever-increasing counters for the channel time
>>> and busy time.
>>>
>>> With ath10k, it reports the same values until I do a scan
>>> again, and even then, it is not additive.
>>>
>>> First, should the value only update when we do a scan?
>>>
>>> And second, should ath10k report ever increasing totals
>>> to match ath9k behaviour?
>>>
>>
>> It should be match with ath9k, but the ath10k doesn't accumulate the
>> survey count at currently code,
>> I drafted a patch to fix this issue, will send to public mailist soon.
>
> I notice you can get current cycle stats out of the pdev stats as well,
> and those update every time you ask firmware for stats.
>
> It won't be 100% accurate because you don't know when firmware
> was off-channel or not, but I guess it will be better for me than
> nothing. I certainly don't want to be scanning all the time,
> but grabbing firmware stats already happens when you get ethtool
> stats, so as long as I poll often enough to catch wraps, I think it
> will be good enough.
>
> I guess to get really accurate values, one would have to hack the
> firmware to keep its own accumulated stats and properly deal with
> channel changes.
>
The new FW (from 10.2.4.70 IIRC) add an new WMI interface to supply such
kinds of count.
BR /Yanbo
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Fix survey information reporting
@ 2015-06-05 20:58 ` YanBo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: YanBo @ 2015-06-05 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Greear; +Cc: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan, ath10k, linux-wireless
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> On 06/05/2015 12:10 PM, YanBo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>> I applied these and some other related patches to my hacked-upon 4.0.4, but
>>> I am seeing some inconsistencies between how ath10k and ath9k
>>> reports survey info. I am using my CT firmware based on 10.1.
>>>
>>> ath9k reports ever-increasing counters for the channel time
>>> and busy time.
>>>
>>> With ath10k, it reports the same values until I do a scan
>>> again, and even then, it is not additive.
>>>
>>> First, should the value only update when we do a scan?
>>>
>>> And second, should ath10k report ever increasing totals
>>> to match ath9k behaviour?
>>>
>>
>> It should be match with ath9k, but the ath10k doesn't accumulate the
>> survey count at currently code,
>> I drafted a patch to fix this issue, will send to public mailist soon.
>
> I notice you can get current cycle stats out of the pdev stats as well,
> and those update every time you ask firmware for stats.
>
> It won't be 100% accurate because you don't know when firmware
> was off-channel or not, but I guess it will be better for me than
> nothing. I certainly don't want to be scanning all the time,
> but grabbing firmware stats already happens when you get ethtool
> stats, so as long as I poll often enough to catch wraps, I think it
> will be good enough.
>
> I guess to get really accurate values, one would have to hack the
> firmware to keep its own accumulated stats and properly deal with
> channel changes.
>
The new FW (from 10.2.4.70 IIRC) add an new WMI interface to supply such
kinds of count.
BR /Yanbo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread