public inbox for iwd@lists.linux.dev
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>
To: James Prestwood <prestwoj@gmail.com>, iwd@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Packet/beacon loss roaming improvements
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 10:00:59 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b5138012-c4aa-40bd-892e-5b578a29ade4@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231030134837.452957-1-prestwoj@gmail.com>

Hi James,

> 
> We were seeing beacon loss events not resulting in an immediate
> disconnnect (as I have always expected), still eventually but after

If I recall correctly, Lost Beacon is sent after several beacons in succession 
were lost.  You are right that this could just be bad luck and doesn't actually 
mean that no packets are getting through.  However, in practice mac80211 almost 
always disconnected us soon after.  Didn't we test this pretty thoroughly?

My memory is fuzzy here, but I seem to recall that power save has an effect on 
how lost beacon events are treated by mac80211.  Maybe your recent power save 
patches had an effect?

> plenty of time to roam. I initially added handling for
> beacon loss identical to packet loss (try and find a better BSS) but
> noticed that if IWD did not find a better candidate it resulted in a
> disconnect 100% of the time. I watched a client for a full day and
> whenever beacon loss events arrived they were followed by a
> disconnect within ~5-6 seconds if IWD did not roam. This led me to
> believe that at least on ath10k a beacon loss is still very much a
> sign that a disconnect is going to come, we just have a bit more time
> than other drivers. This was the motivation behind re-using/re-naming
> the 'ap_directed_roam' flag in order to force IWD off the BSS.
> 

ath10k is still a mac80211 driver, no?  Given that we did test Lost Beacon event 
behavior before, I would like some more data points before being convinced it is 
a driver behavior change.

> Again, this is just one driver. Maybe other drivers can
> handle/recover from beacon loss. If we instead want to keep the
> behavior the same as packet loss I'm ok with that (I can keep the
> patch locally), or put the forced roam behavior behind a user
> option e.g. [Roam].ForceRoamOnBeaconLoss

If this is a driver behavior quirk, then this belongs in src/wiphy.c 
driver_infos table somehow.  I'd really rather not add a bazillion config 
options that address the bug-of-the-day.

> 
> James Prestwood (4):
>    station: rename ap_directed_roam to force_roam
>    station: start roam on beacon loss event
>    netdev: handle/send beacon loss event
>    station: rate limit packet loss roam scans
> 
>   src/netdev.c  |  6 ++++-
>   src/netdev.h  |  1 +
>   src/station.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>   3 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 

Regards,
-Denis

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-10-30 15:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-10-30 13:48 [PATCH 0/4] Packet/beacon loss roaming improvements James Prestwood
2023-10-30 13:48 ` [PATCH 1/4] station: rename ap_directed_roam to force_roam James Prestwood
2023-10-30 13:48 ` [PATCH 2/4] station: start roam on beacon loss event James Prestwood
2023-10-30 13:48 ` [PATCH 3/4] netdev: handle/send " James Prestwood
2023-10-30 13:48 ` [PATCH 4/4] station: rate limit packet loss roam scans James Prestwood
2023-10-30 14:48   ` Denis Kenzior
2023-10-30 15:00 ` Denis Kenzior [this message]
2023-10-30 15:37   ` [PATCH 0/4] Packet/beacon loss roaming improvements James Prestwood
2023-10-30 17:05     ` Denis Kenzior
2023-10-30 17:37       ` James Prestwood
2023-11-01 12:07         ` James Prestwood
2023-11-02  1:39           ` Denis Kenzior
2023-11-02 11:58             ` James Prestwood
2023-11-02 14:10               ` Denis Kenzior
2023-11-02 14:33                 ` James Prestwood
2023-11-02 15:17                   ` Denis Kenzior
2023-11-02 15:41                     ` James Prestwood
2023-11-02 16:10                       ` Denis Kenzior
2023-11-02 16:13                         ` James Prestwood

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=b5138012-c4aa-40bd-892e-5b578a29ade4@gmail.com \
    --to=denkenz@gmail.com \
    --cc=iwd@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=prestwoj@gmail.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox