From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8F4C2D0DB for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 19:23:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0EE20661 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 19:23:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="ptEOB265" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726998AbgA2TXD (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:23:03 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f182.google.com ([209.85.222.182]:37354 "EHLO mail-qk1-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726171AbgA2TXD (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:23:03 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f182.google.com with SMTP id 21so420978qky.4 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:23:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yVPwCZou2x7KcgTyD/o2JIHV/9f6QyHEWgD9za61bSI=; b=ptEOB2657hNO1ogcR9cKLvjnUT166iN7VMcmS9PdR1TmYpbgpAB+sf2Q5izEkjWGMw u2RIXpt0sU9q7EducLYS0IdR+FyZT4mRuCyNkQ9xJQc+IDHvkj45cB4XoCKFP86WLIY/ iXUceO9llDDV/dLSWe4MV5xV/HsLEs7UPot6g0QrJLrdTIiKHwlJmBYcQALJspsTnb7h Aes2gcH7rmH0MVx3iaAZPd/ORrpaWMJg05vtkFN/wp8hn36gtyXfm+YW2ns8+bs66yc+ wAnFRwPlU8gVFbdu1ysaR/hOu5DSClh+umBgisLmjtDGWw5q43xZV2KwD7svk+7CHDmY /RhQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yVPwCZou2x7KcgTyD/o2JIHV/9f6QyHEWgD9za61bSI=; b=LE7X3eeE45SS7e0554DZcBki22Lp+JWrOp7g+vz5lAg+n84r72XlMOD7tEWb3vgYLE sIESWKOkkxirfFznsNShte161hrP3ZEdbUDUxYk7fUy1pPg1SKu+otcIQEFkSkI19uoL kyYCFZoOx0pasFOKEE/7/VGNKHf4sSanT/+DTF8bcwvYmSRoCY99AQfX0MzyBge+7Z8s 9nlZYVMY0Ob21kH92XXulTaqfzJ7HVv6Zx+nzyeOit3Damb7UM4Hgn3pPL/Z7mWBUFXr NixkvGjrQ3BMYJN9hkGVoXrH8N1nKYVjtAm0njIykeJL1xQabccG0DR5maKKggKXvOlU YS9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX6mpYVHJb+bmTSZ3lfvGOAH+4ABNWxs1czUmasdfmuYGWZ78Re yqvytZgcD7M33RJAESV78u44VGcG X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzHhoj2o/wnhST7vqFBBo5bziCdYvoYbfN2Jci1kxSdjBypgpC5xMlXdaeIiwmseWkixnyquQ== X-Received: by 2002:a37:8e45:: with SMTP id q66mr1334631qkd.129.1580325782137; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:23:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.10] (dhcp-108-168-58-21.cable.user.start.ca. [108.168.58.21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h12sm1552695qtn.56.2020.01.29.11.23.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jan 2020 11:23:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1580325769.26012.54.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Strange performance issue when using two devices at once From: Marlon Smith To: Ben Greear , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:22:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <2e80a485-892d-3b29-19c7-38a9caa14f4b@candelatech.com> References: <1580323191.26012.48.camel@gmail.com> <2e80a485-892d-3b29-19c7-38a9caa14f4b@candelatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 10:42 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > On 1/29/20 10:39 AM, Marlon Smith wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I have two RT5370 devices connected to the same access point. Both > > devices are very slow, but the instant I disconnect one device, the > > other speeds up by a factor of 10. > Out of curiosity, are both of the RT5370 used on the same client > device? > > Did you check that they have unique MAC addresses? > > Thanks, > Ben > > > > > > > The really strange part is that one device will perform slowly even > > if > > the other device is basically idle! I've confirmed this with a > > packet > > sniffer. > > > > I've been trying to do some debugging, and I've found that when > > both > > devices are connected to the access point, they report a large > > number > > of duplicate frames. I added some debug output > > in ieee80211_rx_h_check_dup() to confirm that this only happens > > while > > both devices are connected. The packet sniffer also shows a large > > number of retries while this is occurring. > > > > Using backports 5.3-rc4 for this, but also tested on 4.14-rc2. > > > > I did post about this previously on this mailing list (RT5370 > > performance issues), but I thought I'd post again with this new > > information and more descriptive title. I'm a little bit stuck on > > this > > for a while now, so any ideas are much appreciated. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Marlon > > They are on separate devices, although the mac addresses are close. 70:F1:1C:2E:AF:B4 and 70:F1:1C:2E:AF:B6. However, I have a third device 70:F1:1C:2E:AF:BB which performs well and does not affect the performance of the other two.