From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Can we ignore frames with invalid BSSID in IBSS mode?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:04:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <560C324A.2000002@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <560C2B46.2040200@candelatech.com>
On 2015-09-30 20:34, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 11:30 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 10:20 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, it is a transmitter side problem, and A-MSDU on IBSS
>>> is disabled by default in all ath10k firmware versions that I am aware of.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> I was hoping there might be a way to allow A-MSDU + IBSS + ath10k
>>> to work in future kernels without applying out-of-tree
>>> kernel hacks. This would let people with appropriate firmware
>>> enable IBSS + A-MSDU for added performance in cases where they
>>> knew the peer could support the needed work-around.
>>>
>>> I don't think it is worth a lot of effort, but if it were relatively
>>> simple to fix, then maybe it is worth it.
>>>
>>
>> Had it been a receiver-side issue, then it'd seem reasonable to work
>> around it. But it being a transmitter-side issue it doesn't really seem
>> so - *every* possible peer would have to be adjusted, and some might
>> not even be able to get adjusted (e.g. devices that have A-MSDU
>> deaggregation in hardware/firmware) ...
>>
>> So to do that properly you'd have to advertise some sort of quirk
>> vendor IE, and all that, which seems excessive given the limited use.
>
> I was figuring the main users of this would be people rolling out
> IBSS mesh networks and such, and they might have good knowledge of exactly
> what peers will be used.
>
> It is a small enough hack to the stack to just ignore the BSSID for
> adhoc, and since CT firmware related patches are not accepted upstream
> anyway, I guess anyone doing this is likely running custom patches
> already.
I think instead of making a bunch of assumptions about who is going to
use this for what, you should just leave A-MSDU disabled for IBSS.
If you present this as a way to improve performance, users will probably
mindlessly enable it without trying to understand why it wasn't enabled
by default. Afterwards, they will create annoying and hard-to-debug bug
reports for you and other people to waste time on.
- Felix
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Can we ignore frames with invalid BSSID in IBSS mode?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:04:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <560C324A.2000002@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <560C2B46.2040200@candelatech.com>
On 2015-09-30 20:34, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 11:30 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 10:20 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, it is a transmitter side problem, and A-MSDU on IBSS
>>> is disabled by default in all ath10k firmware versions that I am aware of.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> I was hoping there might be a way to allow A-MSDU + IBSS + ath10k
>>> to work in future kernels without applying out-of-tree
>>> kernel hacks. This would let people with appropriate firmware
>>> enable IBSS + A-MSDU for added performance in cases where they
>>> knew the peer could support the needed work-around.
>>>
>>> I don't think it is worth a lot of effort, but if it were relatively
>>> simple to fix, then maybe it is worth it.
>>>
>>
>> Had it been a receiver-side issue, then it'd seem reasonable to work
>> around it. But it being a transmitter-side issue it doesn't really seem
>> so - *every* possible peer would have to be adjusted, and some might
>> not even be able to get adjusted (e.g. devices that have A-MSDU
>> deaggregation in hardware/firmware) ...
>>
>> So to do that properly you'd have to advertise some sort of quirk
>> vendor IE, and all that, which seems excessive given the limited use.
>
> I was figuring the main users of this would be people rolling out
> IBSS mesh networks and such, and they might have good knowledge of exactly
> what peers will be used.
>
> It is a small enough hack to the stack to just ignore the BSSID for
> adhoc, and since CT firmware related patches are not accepted upstream
> anyway, I guess anyone doing this is likely running custom patches
> already.
I think instead of making a bunch of assumptions about who is going to
use this for what, you should just leave A-MSDU disabled for IBSS.
If you present this as a way to improve performance, users will probably
mindlessly enable it without trying to understand why it wasn't enabled
by default. Afterwards, they will create annoying and hard-to-debug bug
reports for you and other people to waste time on.
- Felix
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-30 19:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-25 23:00 Can we ignore frames with invalid BSSID in IBSS mode? Ben Greear
2015-09-25 23:00 ` Ben Greear
2015-09-30 6:46 ` Johannes Berg
2015-09-30 6:46 ` Johannes Berg
2015-09-30 15:07 ` Ben Greear
2015-09-30 15:07 ` Ben Greear
2015-09-30 15:17 ` Johannes Berg
2015-09-30 15:17 ` Johannes Berg
2015-09-30 15:44 ` Ben Greear
2015-09-30 15:44 ` Ben Greear
2015-09-30 17:14 ` Johannes Berg
2015-09-30 17:14 ` Johannes Berg
2015-09-30 17:20 ` Ben Greear
2015-09-30 17:20 ` Ben Greear
2015-09-30 18:30 ` Johannes Berg
2015-09-30 18:30 ` Johannes Berg
2015-09-30 18:34 ` Ben Greear
2015-09-30 18:34 ` Ben Greear
2015-09-30 19:04 ` Felix Fietkau [this message]
2015-09-30 19:04 ` Felix Fietkau
2015-09-30 8:13 ` Nicolas Cavallari
2015-09-30 8:13 ` Nicolas Cavallari
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=560C324A.2000002@openwrt.org \
--to=nbd@openwrt.org \
--cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.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.