Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Ben Greear]

We've been doing some tests using Atheros stations and various APs.  The max throughput
we've seen so far is about 237Mbps (received UDP payload on the stations).
(Open-Air, AP about 5 feet away, 3x3 MIMO, HT40, 5Ghz, etc).

We are still running lots of different permutations, but I am interested if
anyone else has any numbers to share (official or otherwise).

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Sujith Manoharan]

Ben Greear wrote:
> We've been doing some tests using Atheros stations and various APs.  The max throughput
> we've seen so far is about 237Mbps (received UDP payload on the stations).
> (Open-Air, AP about 5 feet away, 3x3 MIMO, HT40, 5Ghz, etc).
> 
> We are still running lots of different permutations, but I am interested if
> anyone else has any numbers to share (official or otherwise).

Which card/chip ?

With a XB112 card (3x3) in HT40 mode, 5Ghz, TX throughput (TCP) can reach 290 Mbps.
Sample iperf run:

[  3] 28.0-29.0 sec  34.1 MBytes   286 Mbits/sec
[  3] 29.0-30.0 sec  34.6 MBytes   290 Mbits/sec
[  3] 30.0-31.0 sec  34.8 MBytes   292 Mbits/sec
[  3] 31.0-32.0 sec  34.8 MBytes   292 Mbits/sec
[  3] 32.0-33.0 sec  34.9 MBytes   293 Mbits/sec

Sujith

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Joe Semler]

Am 26.05.2012 um 05:24 schrieb Sujith Manoharan <c_manoha@qca.qualcomm.com>:

> Ben Greear wrote:
>> We've been doing some tests using Atheros stations and various APs.  The max throughput
>> we've seen so far is about 237Mbps (received UDP payload on the stations).
>> (Open-Air, AP about 5 feet away, 3x3 MIMO, HT40, 5Ghz, etc).
>> 
>> We are still running lots of different permutations, but I am interested if
>> anyone else has any numbers to share (official or otherwise).
> 
> Which card/chip ?
> 
> With a XB112 card (3x3) in HT40 mode, 5Ghz, TX throughput (TCP) can reach 290 Mbps.
> Sample iperf run:
> 
> [  3] 28.0-29.0 sec  34.1 MBytes   286 Mbits/sec
> [  3] 29.0-30.0 sec  34.6 MBytes   290 Mbits/sec
> [  3] 30.0-31.0 sec  34.8 MBytes   292 Mbits/sec
> [  3] 31.0-32.0 sec  34.8 MBytes   292 Mbits/sec
> [  3] 32.0-33.0 sec  34.9 MBytes   293 Mbits/sec

Do you use ath9k for that purpouse? I was thinking our driver is not able to operate MIMO.
Some changes that i missed?

JoeSemler
> 
> Sujith
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Sujith Manoharan]

Joe Semler wrote:
> > With a XB112 card (3x3) in HT40 mode, 5Ghz, TX throughput (TCP) can reach 290 Mbps.
> > Sample iperf run:
> > 
> > [  3] 28.0-29.0 sec  34.1 MBytes   286 Mbits/sec
> > [  3] 29.0-30.0 sec  34.6 MBytes   290 Mbits/sec
> > [  3] 30.0-31.0 sec  34.8 MBytes   292 Mbits/sec
> > [  3] 31.0-32.0 sec  34.8 MBytes   292 Mbits/sec
> > [  3] 32.0-33.0 sec  34.9 MBytes   293 Mbits/sec
> 
> Do you use ath9k for that purpouse? I was thinking our driver is not able to operate MIMO.
> Some changes that i missed?

Yes, those numbers are with ath9k, with latest wireless-testing.

Sujith

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Sujith Manoharan]

Josef Semler wrote:
> OK, tnx Sujith, but that brings me to my next question acc. 2x2 or 3x3 on
> OpenWRT-based devices like NanoStation M or AirBridge M.  Up to now only 1x2
> or 1x3 was possible on this devices. Do we have changings there too?

Hm, am not sure about these devices. But, the number of streams is determined
based on the chip, and there is nothing that can be done to increase it. If
you have access, load the driver with the parameter 'debug=0x200' and check
dmesg - this should show the number of TX/RX streams.

Sujith

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Felix Fietkau]

On 2012-05-26 9:55 AM, Josef Semler wrote:
> 
> 
> 2012/5/26 Sujith Manoharan <c_manoha@qca.qualcomm.com
> <mailto:c_manoha@qca.qualcomm.com>>
> 
>     Joe Semler wrote:
>     > > With a XB112 card (3x3) in HT40 mode, 5Ghz, TX throughput (TCP)
>     can reach 290 Mbps.
>     > > Sample iperf run:
>     > >
>     > > [  3] 28.0-29.0 sec  34.1 MBytes   286 Mbits/sec
>     > > [  3] 29.0-30.0 sec  34.6 MBytes   290 Mbits/sec
>     > > [  3] 30.0-31.0 sec  34.8 MBytes   292 Mbits/sec
>     > > [  3] 31.0-32.0 sec  34.8 MBytes   292 Mbits/sec
>     > > [  3] 32.0-33.0 sec  34.9 MBytes   293 Mbits/sec
>     >
>     > Do you use ath9k for that purpouse? I was thinking our driver is
>     not able to operate MIMO.
>     > Some changes that i missed?
> 
>     Yes, those numbers are with ath9k, with latest wireless-testing.
> 
> OK, tnx Sujith, but that brings me to my next question acc. 2x2 or 3x3
> on OpenWRT-based devices like NanoStation M or AirBridge M.
> Up to now only 1x2 or 1x3 was possible on this devices. Do we have
> changings there too?
Why do you think that only 1x2 or 1x3 was possible on these devices? 2x2
and 3x3 has been working just fine for a long time now, and it's enabled
by default where supported by the hardware.

- Felix

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Ben Greear]

On 05/25/2012 08:24 PM, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
> Ben Greear wrote:
>> We've been doing some tests using Atheros stations and various APs.  The max throughput
>> we've seen so far is about 237Mbps (received UDP payload on the stations).
>> (Open-Air, AP about 5 feet away, 3x3 MIMO, HT40, 5Ghz, etc).
>>
>> We are still running lots of different permutations, but I am interested if
>> anyone else has any numbers to share (official or otherwise).
>
> Which card/chip ?

We're using WPEA-127N.  We have a dual-core Atom for one system, and
a quad-core i7 CPU (and two wifi NICs) in another system..  So far, the Atom with
single NIC is benchmarking better in some tests.  We were only using one of
the NICs in the i7 for testing, but maybe there is still some interference
or maybe we just had bad antenna placement or something.

We've used various Asus and Netgear APs...haven't done throughput tests with
home-grown APs running Atheros NICs recently, but will do so next week.

> With a XB112 card (3x3) in HT40 mode, 5Ghz, TX throughput (TCP) can reach 290 Mbps.

What chipset or brand/model is this?  I see that XB112 mentioned in the WPEA-127N
description, but maybe that is just a form-factor description?

> Sample iperf run:
>
> [  3] 28.0-29.0 sec  34.1 MBytes   286 Mbits/sec
> [  3] 29.0-30.0 sec  34.6 MBytes   290 Mbits/sec
> [  3] 30.0-31.0 sec  34.8 MBytes   292 Mbits/sec
> [  3] 31.0-32.0 sec  34.8 MBytes   292 Mbits/sec
> [  3] 32.0-33.0 sec  34.9 MBytes   293 Mbits/sec

Can you offer any additional details on how you tested this?  You are using the same
NIC for both AP and station?

Open-air connection?

How far away is AP?

I would like to try to reproduce this result, as it is significantly better
than what I'm seeing.

Are you doing any special AP tuning, like using short-guard-intervals
or similar?  Care to post the wpa_supplicant and hostapd config files?

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Sujith Manoharan]

Ben Greear wrote:
> We're using WPEA-127N.  We have a dual-core Atom for one system, and
> a quad-core i7 CPU (and two wifi NICs) in another system..  So far, the Atom with
> single NIC is benchmarking better in some tests.  We were only using one of
> the NICs in the i7 for testing, but maybe there is still some interference
> or maybe we just had bad antenna placement or something.

Fiddling with antenna position/placement does help.

> What chipset or brand/model is this?  I see that XB112 mentioned in the WPEA-127N
> description, but maybe that is just a form-factor description?

XB112 is the board and I am using an engineering sample. The WLAN chipset
is AR9380.

> Can you offer any additional details on how you tested this?  You are using the same
> NIC for both AP and station?
> 
> Open-air connection?
> 
> How far away is AP?
> 
> I would like to try to reproduce this result, as it is significantly better
> than what I'm seeing.
> 
> Are you doing any special AP tuning, like using short-guard-intervals
> or similar?  Care to post the wpa_supplicant and hostapd config files?

I am using a DB120 as AP which has dual radio - AR9340/AR9300. The setup is
standard:

STA -------------->  AP -------------------> CONSOLE
       wlan/OTA             gig-ethernet


The AP runs an internal BSP/SDK build and is positioned about 4-5 feet from
the Station. As for the HT parameters, HT40 and short-GI is enabled in both
bands.

Sujith

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Sujith Manoharan]

Sujith Manoharan wrote:
> I am using a DB120 as AP which has dual radio - AR9340/AR9300. The setup is
> standard:
> 
> STA -------------->  AP -------------------> CONSOLE
>        wlan/OTA             gig-ethernet
> 
> 
> The AP runs an internal BSP/SDK build and is positioned about 4-5 feet from
> the Station. As for the HT parameters, HT40 and short-GI is enabled in both
> bands.

With UDP, these are the numbers I get:

Server: [ iperf -i1 -s -u -l 8K ]

[  3] 29.0-30.0 sec  38.9 MBytes   327 Mbits/sec   0.246 ms   10/ 4993 (0.2%)
[  3] 30.0-31.0 sec  38.6 MBytes   323 Mbits/sec   0.260 ms   34/ 4970 (0.68%)
[  3] 31.0-32.0 sec  39.3 MBytes   330 Mbits/sec   0.212 ms   14/ 5045 (0.28%)
[  3] 32.0-33.0 sec  37.2 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec   0.229 ms   15/ 4777 (0.31%)
[  3] 33.0-34.0 sec  39.0 MBytes   327 Mbits/sec   0.253 ms   13/ 5002 (0.26%)

Client: [ iperf -i1 -c 172.16.0.10 -t 10000 -u -b 400M -l 8K ]

[  3] 29.0-30.0 sec  39.0 MBytes   327 Mbits/sec
[  3] 30.0-31.0 sec  38.9 MBytes   326 Mbits/sec
[  3] 31.0-32.0 sec  39.4 MBytes   330 Mbits/sec
[  3] 32.0-33.0 sec  37.3 MBytes   313 Mbits/sec
[  3] 33.0-34.0 sec  39.1 MBytes   328 Mbits/sec


Sujith

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Joe Semler]

Hi Felix,


Am 26.05.2012 um 14:35 schrieb Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>:

>> 
>> 
>> OK, tnx Sujith, but that brings me to my next question acc. 2x2 or 3x3
>> on OpenWRT-based devices like NanoStation M or AirBridge M.
>> Up to now only 1x2 or 1x3 was possible on this devices. Do we have
>> changings there too?
> Why do you think that only 1x2 or 1x3 was possible on these devices? 2x2
> and 3x3 has been working just fine for a long time now, and it's enabled
> by default where supported by the hardware
Pickend this Info from The List that devices with openwrt are just transmitting at 1 stream but rec. at both. How can I change the settings? Also with uci or only with the iw-commands?
Tnx 4 support.

Joe
> 
> - Felix

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Adrian Chadd]

Hi,

If the device EEPROM states that it's a 2x2/3x3 device, it'll TX on
two/three streams.

If it's something like an AR9281 where it's physically a 1T2R stream
device, that's what it'll transmit/receive on by default.

If it's something like an AR9285 where it's physically a 1T1R stream
device with antenna diversity, that's also what you get.

If the device EEPROM lies though, well, that's a problem. :-)


Adrian

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Adrian Chadd]

On 25 May 2012 20:17, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> We've been doing some tests using Atheros stations and various APs.  The max
> throughput
> we've seen so far is about 237Mbps (received UDP payload on the stations).
> (Open-Air, AP about 5 feet away, 3x3 MIMO, HT40, 5Ghz, etc).
>
> We are still running lots of different permutations, but I am interested if
> anyone else has any numbers to share (official or otherwise).

FWIW, FreeBSD was getting 270MBit/sec one-way UDP and 150MBit one-way
TCP out of AR9160/AR9280's late last year. I should re-run those tests
again now that I've fixed a bunch of things and see if I've regressed.
Those are 2T2R devices w/ a Routerstation Pro (AR7161) as the hostap.

At that stage I was maxing out the AR7161 CPU quite badly and filling
up all kinds of TX/RX paths, to the point that beacon transmission
stopped being reliable. But I haven't really sat down and run
performance measurements on MIPS so it's quite possible there's some
inefficiencies in FreeBSD that I can work around (to reduce the CPU
overhead, I was happy with the throughput.. :)

Sujith, would you mind testing out ath9k/openwrt on a DB120 and see if
you can get the same results as our internal LSDK builds?

Thanks,


Adrian

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Christian Lamparter]

On Saturday 26 May 2012 17:37:50 Ben Greear wrote:
> We're using WPEA-127N.  We have a dual-core Atom for one system, and
> a quad-core i7 CPU (and two wifi NICs) in another system..  So far,
> the Atom with single NIC is benchmarking better in some tests.  We
> were only using one of the NICs in the i7 for testing, but maybe
> there is still some interference or maybe we just had bad antenna
> placement or something.
> 
> We've used various Asus and Netgear APs...haven't done throughput
> tests with home-grown APs running Atheros NICs recently, but will
> do so next week.
> 
> > With a XB112 card (3x3) in HT40 mode, 5Ghz, TX throughput (TCP) can reach 290 Mbps.
> 
> What chipset or brand/model is this?  I see that XB112 mentioned
> in the WPEA-127N description, but maybe that is just a form-factor
> description?

Well, Atheros made some nice presentations about that:
<http://wenku.baidu.com/view/ac0523f57c1cfad6195fa7f4.html>
take a look at slide 12. It has 11n technology (2x2 vs
3x3 ZF vs ML vs CC vs LDPC vs (TxBF) vs range vs tcp
throughput all on one diagramm)

Regards,
	Chr

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Felix Fietkau]

On 2012-05-26 7:15 PM, Joe Semler wrote:
> Hi Felix,
> 
> 
> Am 26.05.2012 um 14:35 schrieb Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>:
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> OK, tnx Sujith, but that brings me to my next question acc. 2x2 or 3x3
>>> on OpenWRT-based devices like NanoStation M or AirBridge M.
>>> Up to now only 1x2 or 1x3 was possible on this devices. Do we have
>>> changings there too?
>> Why do you think that only 1x2 or 1x3 was possible on these devices? 2x2
>> and 3x3 has been working just fine for a long time now, and it's enabled
>> by default where supported by the hardware
> Pickend this Info from The List that devices with openwrt are just
> transmitting at 1 stream but rec. at both. How can I change the
> settings? Also with uci or only with the iw-commands?
You don't need to change anything, just use the defaults.
I have no idea what post from the list you're referring to, but here's a
piece of advice: It's not unheard of that sometimes people put wrong
things on the internet :)

- Felix

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Sujith Manoharan]

Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 25 May 2012 20:17, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> > We've been doing some tests using Atheros stations and various APs.  The max
> > throughput
> > we've seen so far is about 237Mbps (received UDP payload on the stations).
> > (Open-Air, AP about 5 feet away, 3x3 MIMO, HT40, 5Ghz, etc).
> >
> > We are still running lots of different permutations, but I am interested if
> > anyone else has any numbers to share (official or otherwise).
> 
> FWIW, FreeBSD was getting 270MBit/sec one-way UDP and 150MBit one-way
> TCP out of AR9160/AR9280's late last year. I should re-run those tests
> again now that I've fixed a bunch of things and see if I've regressed.
> Those are 2T2R devices w/ a Routerstation Pro (AR7161) as the hostap.

270 Mbps with a 2-stream device ? That seems abnormally high. :)

> At that stage I was maxing out the AR7161 CPU quite badly and filling
> up all kinds of TX/RX paths, to the point that beacon transmission
> stopped being reliable. But I haven't really sat down and run
> performance measurements on MIPS so it's quite possible there's some
> inefficiencies in FreeBSD that I can work around (to reduce the CPU
> overhead, I was happy with the throughput.. :)
> 
> Sujith, would you mind testing out ath9k/openwrt on a DB120 and see if
> you can get the same results as our internal LSDK builds?

Odd. I get low numbers with a DB120 running OpenWRT (git HEAD).

TCP TX - ~260 Mbps.
TCP RX - ~160 Mbps.

UDP RX - ~240 Mbps.
UDP TX - iperf borks and doesn't display anything.

The load seems to be a bit high (average: 1.92, 1.06, 0.61 ) and the
console becomes laggy.

Maybe 

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Sujith Manoharan]

Sujith Manoharan wrote:
> Odd. I get low numbers with a DB120 running OpenWRT (git HEAD).
> 
> TCP TX - ~260 Mbps.
> TCP RX - ~160 Mbps.
> 
> UDP RX - ~240 Mbps.
> UDP TX - iperf borks and doesn't display anything.
> 
> The load seems to be a bit high (average: 1.92, 1.06, 0.61 ) and the
> console becomes laggy.
> 
> Maybe 

Huh.

Now that I have added "(setq vm-confirm-mail-send t)" to my .emacs, I'll
finish the email. :)

Maybe support for DB120 is not complete yet - but am not sure.

Sujith

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Ben Greear]

On 05/26/2012 07:09 PM, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
> Sujith Manoharan wrote:
>> Odd. I get low numbers with a DB120 running OpenWRT (git HEAD).
>>
>> TCP TX - ~260 Mbps.
>> TCP RX - ~160 Mbps.
>>
>> UDP RX - ~240 Mbps.
>> UDP TX - iperf borks and doesn't display anything.

Maybe NAT won't let it through, if this is coming downstream?

For that matter, from what perspective is the TX or RX?

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Sujith Manoharan]

Ben Greear wrote:
> On 05/26/2012 07:09 PM, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
> > Sujith Manoharan wrote:
> >> Odd. I get low numbers with a DB120 running OpenWRT (git HEAD).
> >>
> >> TCP TX - ~260 Mbps.
> >> TCP RX - ~160 Mbps.
> >>
> >> UDP RX - ~240 Mbps.
> >> UDP TX - iperf borks and doesn't display anything.
> 
> Maybe NAT won't let it through, if this is coming downstream?

Ah yes, OpenWRT has default iptables rules - I'll check.

> For that matter, from what perspective is the TX or RX?

I was using the ath9k station as the test unit, so:

STA->AP is TX.
AP->STA is RX.

Sujith

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Felix Fietkau]

On 2012-05-27 4:09 AM, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
> Sujith Manoharan wrote:
>> Odd. I get low numbers with a DB120 running OpenWRT (git HEAD).
>> 
>> TCP TX - ~260 Mbps.
>> TCP RX - ~160 Mbps.
>> 
>> UDP RX - ~240 Mbps.
>> UDP TX - iperf borks and doesn't display anything.
>> 
>> The load seems to be a bit high (average: 1.92, 1.06, 0.61 ) and the
>> console becomes laggy.
>> 
>> Maybe 
> 
> Huh.
> 
> Now that I have added "(setq vm-confirm-mail-send t)" to my .emacs, I'll
> finish the email. :)
> 
> Maybe support for DB120 is not complete yet - but am not sure.
I will look into it.

- Felix

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Adrian Chadd]

On 26 May 2012 19:05, Sujith Manoharan <c_manoha@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:

>> FWIW, FreeBSD was getting 270MBit/sec one-way UDP and 150MBit one-way
>> TCP out of AR9160/AR9280's late last year. I should re-run those tests
>> again now that I've fixed a bunch of things and see if I've regressed.
>> Those are 2T2R devices w/ a Routerstation Pro (AR7161) as the hostap.
>
> 270 Mbps with a 2-stream device ? That seems abnormally high. :)

The 40MHz/MCS15/SGI PHY rate is "300MBit", so I was expecting to get
around 250MBit. That was pretty easy. 270MBit was kind of scary and
showed all kinds of broken corner cases.

I'll go and try FreeBSD-HEAD again with all the lock debugging
disabled and post results. It's quite possible that I'm
mis-remembering. :)



Adrian

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Adrian Chadd]

DB120 (wasp+osprey) should be supported. :-)


Adrian

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Ben Greear]

On 05/26/2012 09:39 AM, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
> Sujith Manoharan wrote:
>> I am using a DB120 as AP which has dual radio - AR9340/AR9300. The setup is
>> standard:

Do you have a link to anyone selling this AP, or is it just an
engineering sample as well?

I didn't have much luck finding it in google...  Is there a more specific
part number or manufacturer available?

I can't even find marketing type pages for AR9340, search results come up
empty at www.atheros.com :P

>> STA -------------->   AP ------------------->  CONSOLE
>>         wlan/OTA             gig-ethernet
>>
>>
>> The AP runs an internal BSP/SDK build and is positioned about 4-5 feet from
>> the Station. As for the HT parameters, HT40 and short-GI is enabled in both
>> bands.
>
> With UDP, these are the numbers I get:
>
> Server: [ iperf -i1 -s -u -l 8K ]
>
> [  3] 29.0-30.0 sec  38.9 MBytes   327 Mbits/sec   0.246 ms   10/ 4993 (0.2%)
> [  3] 30.0-31.0 sec  38.6 MBytes   323 Mbits/sec   0.260 ms   34/ 4970 (0.68%)
> [  3] 31.0-32.0 sec  39.3 MBytes   330 Mbits/sec   0.212 ms   14/ 5045 (0.28%)
> [  3] 32.0-33.0 sec  37.2 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec   0.229 ms   15/ 4777 (0.31%)
> [  3] 33.0-34.0 sec  39.0 MBytes   327 Mbits/sec   0.253 ms   13/ 5002 (0.26%)
>
> Client: [ iperf -i1 -c 172.16.0.10 -t 10000 -u -b 400M -l 8K ]
>
> [  3] 29.0-30.0 sec  39.0 MBytes   327 Mbits/sec
> [  3] 30.0-31.0 sec  38.9 MBytes   326 Mbits/sec
> [  3] 31.0-32.0 sec  39.4 MBytes   330 Mbits/sec
> [  3] 32.0-33.0 sec  37.3 MBytes   313 Mbits/sec
> [  3] 33.0-34.0 sec  39.1 MBytes   328 Mbits/sec

Those are nice results!  I'll try WPEA-127N as AP and STA and see what I get.

If you have any suggestions for other commercially available NICs or APs to try,
please let me know.

Thanks,
Ben


-- 
Ben Greear <greearbse@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Adrian Chadd]

On 27 May 2012 08:08, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:

> Do you have a link to anyone selling this AP, or is it just an
> engineering sample as well?

The board is an engineering sample but (a) customers and developers
can ask for them under NDA, (b) yes, openwrt developers have done this
and have the hardware, and (c) the chip is shipping as far as I'm
aware.

It's "just" a MIPS74k + AR9340 (3x3) + on-board AR9580 I think. I'll
have to double check. The wireless NIC side of things is pretty
standard though, so any Osprey NIC will be fine.

> I can't even find marketing type pages for AR9340, search results come up
> empty at www.atheros.com :P
>> [  3] 33.0-34.0 sec  39.0 MBytes   327 Mbits/sec   0.253 ms   13/ 5002
>> (0.26%)

> Those are nice results!  I'll try WPEA-127N as AP and STA and see what I
> get.

That's what you should be getting. I'd be really surprised if you didn't. :-)

nbd has said he'll look into it, so between Sujith and Felix I think
we're well covered for now.

Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention Ben!


Adrian

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Felix Fietkau]

On 2012-05-27 7:40 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 27 May 2012 08:08, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> 
>> Do you have a link to anyone selling this AP, or is it just an
>> engineering sample as well?
> 
> The board is an engineering sample but (a) customers and developers
> can ask for them under NDA, (b) yes, openwrt developers have done this
> and have the hardware, and (c) the chip is shipping as far as I'm
> aware.
> 
> It's "just" a MIPS74k + AR9340 (3x3) + on-board AR9580 I think. I'll
> have to double check. The wireless NIC side of things is pretty
> standard though, so any Osprey NIC will be fine.
> 
>> I can't even find marketing type pages for AR9340, search results come up
>> empty at www.atheros.com :P
>>> [  3] 33.0-34.0 sec  39.0 MBytes   327 Mbits/sec   0.253 ms   13/ 5002
>>> (0.26%)
> 
>> Those are nice results!  I'll try WPEA-127N as AP and STA and see what I
>> get.
> 
> That's what you should be getting. I'd be really surprised if you didn't. :-)
> 
> nbd has said he'll look into it, so between Sujith and Felix I think
> we're well covered for now.
> 
> Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention Ben!
I already committed some performance fixes in OpenWrt that bring UDP
performance over a WDS link between an AR9344+AR9380 (Atheros DB120) and
an AR7242+AR9380 (TP-Link TL-WR2543ND) up to about 310-320 Mbit/s, when
doing Tx on the DB120 side. Reverse direction is slower, because AR7242
isn't as powerful as the AR9344.

These fixes do not touch ath9k, I only tweaked the network stack to
avoid redundant copying/reallocation of skb data.

- Felix

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Adrian Chadd]

Sweet. Thanks a lot for chasing that up.

What's the oprofile output look like for the AR7242 when doing that?




Adrian

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Felix Fietkau]

On 2012-05-28 1:15 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Sweet. Thanks a lot for chasing that up.
> 
> What's the oprofile output look like for the AR7242 when doing that?
Haven't run oprofile on the AR7242 yet, but here's what 350Mbits/s UDP
ethernet-rx <-> wifi-tx traffic (bridged) looks like on AR9344:

CPU: MIPS 74K, speed 417 MHz (estimated)
Counted CYCLES events (0-0 Cycles) with a unit mask of 0x00 (No unit mask) count 10000
samples  %        app name                 symbol name
203986    6.8165  vmlinux                  ag71xx_poll
139395    4.6581  vmlinux                  __do_softirq
119259    3.9852  mac80211.ko              invoke_tx_handlers
112990    3.7757  vmlinux                  ring_buffer_consume
89195     2.9806  mac80211.ko              ieee80211_tx_status
69185     2.3119  vmlinux                  __copy_user
67684     2.2618  vmlinux                  __bzero
67014     2.2394  ath9k.ko                 ath_txq_schedule
65597     2.1920  vmlinux                  __slab_alloc.isra.60.constprop.63
65375     2.1846  vmlinux                  eth_type_trans
63594     2.1251  vmlinux                  r4k_dma_cache_inv
61121     2.0425  mac80211.ko              ieee80211_subif_start_xmit
50797     1.6975  ath9k_hw.ko              ar9003_set_txdesc
49942     1.6689  vmlinux                  __rmemcpy
48397     1.6173  ath9k.ko                 ath_tx_complete
46697     1.5605  vmlinux                  skb_release_data
45083     1.5065  vmlinux                  __netif_receive_skb
43928     1.4679  ath9k.ko                 ath_tx_complete_aggr.isra.21
43289     1.4466  vmlinux                  vlan_untag
41766     1.3957  mac80211.ko              minstrel_ht_set_rate
41154     1.3752  ath9k.ko                 ath_tx_setup_buffer.isra.18
41136     1.3746  vmlinux                  pfifo_fast_dequeue
40500     1.3534  vmlinux                  __slab_free.isra.58
39498     1.3199  vmlinux                  __qdisc_run
39278     1.3125  ath9k.ko                 ath_tx_start
38789     1.2962  vmlinux                  r4k_dma_cache_wback_inv
38497     1.2864  ath9k.ko                 ath_tx_fill_desc
37308     1.2467  vmlinux                  kfree
36235     1.2109  vmlinux                  br_handle_frame
35178     1.1755  vmlinux                  skb_put
34532     1.1539  vmlinux                  __kmalloc_track_caller
31535     1.0538  vmlinux                  kmem_cache_alloc
31045     1.0374  vmlinux                  dev_queue_xmit
30953     1.0343  vmlinux                  vlan_do_receive
30151     1.0075  mac80211.ko              __ieee80211_tx
30132     1.0069  vmlinux                  put_cpu_partial
29625     0.9900  vmlinux                  mips_dma_map_page
28214     0.9428  mac80211.ko              ieee80211_tx_prepare
27059     0.9042  vmlinux                  br_fdb_update
25845     0.8637  oprofile.ko              add_event_entry
25230     0.8431  vmlinux                  br_handle_frame_finish
24652     0.8238  vmlinux                  net_rx_action
22232     0.7429  mac80211.ko              rate_control_get_rate
21840     0.7298  mac80211.ko              minstrel_ht_get_rate
21591     0.7215  mac80211.ko              ccmp_encrypt_skb
20313     0.6788  ath9k.ko                 ath9k_ps_restore
20055     0.6702  vmlinux                  r4k_wait_irqoff
19867     0.6639  vmlinux                  dev_hard_start_xmit
19220     0.6423  vmlinux                  __br_fdb_get
18673     0.6240  vmlinux                  ksize
17769     0.5938  vmlinux                  __alloc_skb
17687     0.5910  vmlinux                  kmem_cache_free
17605     0.5883  mac80211.ko              minstrel_ht_tx_status
17112     0.5718  mac80211.ko              ieee80211_select_queue
16926     0.5656  ath9k.ko                 ath_tx_complete_buf
16310     0.5450  vmlinux                  pfifo_fast_enqueue
16065     0.5368  vmlinux                  local_bh_enable
15586     0.5208  ath9k.ko                 ath_tx_update_baw.isra.14
14449     0.4828  vmlinux                  skb_push
14097     0.4711  oprofile.ko              sync_buffer
13755     0.4596  vmlinux                  napi_complete
12793     0.4275  vmlinux                  mips_dma_unmap_page
12228     0.4086  vmlinux                  br_dev_queue_push_xmit
12212     0.4081  vmlinux                  br_forward
12149     0.4060  vmlinux                  __netdev_alloc_skb
11250     0.3759  vmlinux                  rcu_bh_qs
11153     0.3727  vmlinux                  atomic64_add_return
11123     0.3717  ath9k.ko                 ath9k_tx
11026     0.3685  ath9k.ko                 ath_debug_stat_tx
10763     0.3597  oprofile.ko              op_cpu_buffer_read_entry

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Ben Greear]

On 05/27/2012 10:40 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 27 May 2012 08:08, Ben Greear<greearb@candelatech.com>  wrote:
>
>> Do you have a link to anyone selling this AP, or is it just an
>> engineering sample as well?
>
> The board is an engineering sample but (a) customers and developers
> can ask for them under NDA, (b) yes, openwrt developers have done this
> and have the hardware, and (c) the chip is shipping as far as I'm
> aware.
>
> It's "just" a MIPS74k + AR9340 (3x3) + on-board AR9580 I think. I'll
> have to double check. The wireless NIC side of things is pretty
> standard though, so any Osprey NIC will be fine.

Ok, I think I understand.  But, "Osprey" returns no useful results
that I can find, so it must be some internal code name for a project.

If you can be more specific about exactly what chipsets/NICs
this includes it would be useful for those of us without NDAs or
other internal Atheros/Qualcomm connections.

As far as shipping chipsets go (perhaps from the list below)
http://www.qca.qualcomm.com/technology/technology.php?nav1=47

What is considered the top-end Atheros chip for fastest/best 3x3 MIMO speeds?

Maybe 9390 (EW-DNXA-H1 for instance?) is expected to be better than 9380?

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Adrian Chadd]

Ah, Osprey is AR93xx series stuff. Well, not strictly speaking, but
that "family."

I'd have to go and check what the current state of all the latest 11n
chips are. Luis, Sujith and Felix would know better than I; I'm still
stuck in the land of AR92xx in FreeBSD (at least for the next few
weeks.)

Also, FreeBSD on 2x2 (AR9160) hostap:


TCP sta -> hostap:

[SUM]  0.0-10.0 sec    178 MBytes    149 Mbits/sec

UDP sta -> hostap:


[ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth       Jitter   Lost/Total Datagrams
[  3]  0.0-10.1 sec    274 MBytes    228 Mbits/sec  0.135 ms 17045/212291 (8%)

TCP is around the expected spot, but I've seen it around 160MBit in
the past. I think I messed up something with BAR/TX scheduling. The
UDP RX is likely another scheduling issue; I seem to be occasionally
overflowing the RX descriptor list.

In any case, I'll fix it up and report back, just as a comparison point.



Adrian

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Sujith Manoharan]

Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Ah, Osprey is AR93xx series stuff. Well, not strictly speaking, but
> that "family."
> 
> I'd have to go and check what the current state of all the latest 11n
> chips are. Luis, Sujith and Felix would know better than I; I'm still
> stuck in the land of AR92xx in FreeBSD (at least for the next few
> weeks.)

ath9k has good support for the AR9003 family - AR9380 based devices, that is.
And the numbers that I posted were with a XB112, which uses AR9380. 

> Also, FreeBSD on 2x2 (AR9160) hostap:
> 
> 
> TCP sta -> hostap:
> 
> [SUM]  0.0-10.0 sec    178 MBytes    149 Mbits/sec
> 
> UDP sta -> hostap:
> 
> 
> [ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth       Jitter   Lost/Total Datagrams
> [  3]  0.0-10.1 sec    274 MBytes    228 Mbits/sec  0.135 ms 17045/212291 (8%)
> 
> TCP is around the expected spot, but I've seen it around 160MBit in
> the past. I think I messed up something with BAR/TX scheduling. The
> UDP RX is likely another scheduling issue; I seem to be occasionally
> overflowing the RX descriptor list.

Well, 228 Mbps is much more reasonable. :)

Sujith

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Adrian Chadd]

Heh. 228MBit is more reasonable, but I'm getting it up around
235/240MBit at the present moment. I'm hitting queue overruns though,
so I think I've messed something up in the driver, or someone broke
the scheduler in weird/wonderful ways.

I'll let you know when it's at 250MBit again. :)



Adrian

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Zefir Kurtisi]

On 05/26/2012 07:58 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> 
> Well, Atheros made some nice presentations about that:
> <http://wenku.baidu.com/view/ac0523f57c1cfad6195fa7f4.html>
> take a look at slide 12. It has 11n technology (2x2 vs
> 3x3 ZF vs ML vs CC vs LDPC vs (TxBF) vs range vs tcp
> throughput all on one diagramm)
> 
Well, that's a really helpful document to have as reference for our
throughput testing. Sadly, the second source Google knows
(http://wenku.it168.com/d_000141980.shtml) also requires to create an
account for downloading the PDF, which I fail after I missed to learn
Chinese in time ;(

QCA folks, any chance to post an official download link to these slides?


Cheers, Zefir

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Felix Fietkau]

On 2012-05-29 12:24 PM, Josef Semler wrote:
> 
> 
> 2012/5/26 Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org <mailto:adrian@freebsd.org>>
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     If the device EEPROM states that it's a 2x2/3x3 device, it'll TX on
>     two/three streams.
> 
>     If it's something like an AR9281 where it's physically a 1T2R stream
>     device, that's what it'll transmit/receive on by default.
> 
>     If it's something like an AR9285 where it's physically a 1T1R stream
>     device with antenna diversity, that's also what you get.
> 
>     If the device EEPROM lies though, well, that's a problem. :-)
> 
> Installed OpenWRT für ubnt-nano on a Nanobridge. Well, NanoBridge should
> be 2x2 MIMO, but the device shows me AR7240 rev.2
> Is this a a EEPROM-lie and how can I correct it?
AR7240 is the CPU, not the wifi chip.

- Felix

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Ben Greear]

On 05/27/2012 08:08 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 05/26/2012 09:39 AM, Sujith Manoharan wrote:

>> With UDP, these are the numbers I get:
>>
>> Server: [ iperf -i1 -s -u -l 8K ]
>>
>> [  3] 29.0-30.0 sec  38.9 MBytes   327 Mbits/sec   0.246 ms   10/ 4993 (0.2%)
>> [  3] 30.0-31.0 sec  38.6 MBytes   323 Mbits/sec   0.260 ms   34/ 4970 (0.68%)
>> [  3] 31.0-32.0 sec  39.3 MBytes   330 Mbits/sec   0.212 ms   14/ 5045 (0.28%)
>> [  3] 32.0-33.0 sec  37.2 MBytes   312 Mbits/sec   0.229 ms   15/ 4777 (0.31%)
>> [  3] 33.0-34.0 sec  39.0 MBytes   327 Mbits/sec   0.253 ms   13/ 5002 (0.26%)

We started testing with two AR9380 NICs today (one AP, the other STA).
I applied Felix's skb optimization patch, and the ath9k memleak fix patch
on top of 3.3.7+.

When we generate traffic using a modified version of pktgen,
the STA interface transmits at around 310Mbps for a minute or
two, but then the system dies of OOM (and maybe worse..having
trouble getting useful serial console log).  It died much faster
before Felix's two patches were applied.

I disabled all of our network related buffer adjustments
(ie, no longer increasing tcp_wmem, etc), and it still
crashes.

The system has 2GB RAM, but it is 32-bit kernel, so not all
is available to the networking code...  That said, the OOM
killer kills VNC and such.

Anyway, I'll try some memleak debugging to see if
I can find any leaks.  It seems to me that we should
not actually OOM just by trying to transmit too fast
on a station interface :P

PS.  If anyone knows how to make minicom ignore page
refreshes so that it doesn't obscure the last bit of
the crash log when BIOS starts up again, please let me know!

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Christian Lamparter]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 08:23:20 PM Ben Greear wrote:
> On 05/27/2012 08:08 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
> > On 05/26/2012 09:39 AM, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
> We started testing with two AR9380 NICs today (one AP, the other STA).
> I applied Felix's skb optimization patch, and the ath9k memleak fix patch
> on top of 3.3.7+.
>
> The system has 2GB RAM, but it is 32-bit kernel, so not all
> is available to the networking code...  That said, the OOM
> killer kills VNC and such.
> 
> Anyway, I'll try some memleak debugging to see if
> I can find any leaks.  It seems to me that we should
> not actually OOM just by trying to transmit too fast
> on a station interface :P
well, there's that:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.ath9k.devel/8233

It might not fix the bug, but it can save you time to confirm
that is not related to this particular skb leak.

Regards,
	Chr

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Ben Greear]

On 05/29/2012 12:07 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 08:23:20 PM Ben Greear wrote:
>> On 05/27/2012 08:08 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
>>> On 05/26/2012 09:39 AM, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
>> We started testing with two AR9380 NICs today (one AP, the other STA).
>> I applied Felix's skb optimization patch, and the ath9k memleak fix patch
>> on top of 3.3.7+.
>>
>> The system has 2GB RAM, but it is 32-bit kernel, so not all
>> is available to the networking code...  That said, the OOM
>> killer kills VNC and such.
>>
>> Anyway, I'll try some memleak debugging to see if
>> I can find any leaks.  It seems to me that we should
>> not actually OOM just by trying to transmit too fast
>> on a station interface :P
> well, there's that:
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.ath9k.devel/8233
>
> It might not fix the bug, but it can save you time to confirm
> that is not related to this particular skb leak.

Ok, I will try this.

The leak this might fix is some ack logic up in mac80211?

Seems like we could also use some atomic counters to keep
track of number of outstanding mac80211-alocated skbs with this
and be worried if this number grows and grows?

Thanks,
Ben


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Ben Greear]

On 05/29/2012 12:07 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 08:23:20 PM Ben Greear wrote:
>> On 05/27/2012 08:08 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
>>> On 05/26/2012 09:39 AM, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
>> We started testing with two AR9380 NICs today (one AP, the other STA).
>> I applied Felix's skb optimization patch, and the ath9k memleak fix patch
>> on top of 3.3.7+.
>>
>> The system has 2GB RAM, but it is 32-bit kernel, so not all
>> is available to the networking code...  That said, the OOM
>> killer kills VNC and such.
>>
>> Anyway, I'll try some memleak debugging to see if
>> I can find any leaks.  It seems to me that we should
>> not actually OOM just by trying to transmit too fast
>> on a station interface :P
> well, there's that:
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.ath9k.devel/8233
>
> It might not fix the bug, but it can save you time to confirm
> that is not related to this particular skb leak.

I ported this to 3.3.7+ and applied it to my kernel
trees.  It has tested out fine so far, though it did not
actually fix the problem I was having.  That was not
a real leak, just always-growing pending queue length,
probably due to some issue with our version of pktgen.

It is mostly a port-by-hand type of thing since
there are lots of conflicts.  Let me know if you'd
like me to post my version (and plz confirm your
signed-off-by).

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Dave Taht]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
> On 05/29/2012 12:07 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 08:23:20 PM Ben Greear wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/27/2012 08:08 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/26/2012 09:39 AM, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
>>>
>>> We started testing with two AR9380 NICs today (one AP, the other STA).
>>> I applied Felix's skb optimization patch, and the ath9k memleak fix patch
>>> on top of 3.3.7+.
>>>
>>> The system has 2GB RAM, but it is 32-bit kernel, so not all
>>> is available to the networking code...  That said, the OOM
>>> killer kills VNC and such.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'll try some memleak debugging to see if
>>> I can find any leaks.  It seems to me that we should
>>> not actually OOM just by trying to transmit too fast
>>> on a station interface :P
>>
>> well, there's that:
>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.ath9k.devel/8233
>>
>> It might not fix the bug, but it can save you time to confirm
>> that is not related to this particular skb leak.
>
>
> I ported this to 3.3.7+ and applied it to my kernel
> trees.  It has tested out fine so far, though it did not
> actually fix the problem I was having.  That was not
> a real leak, just always-growing pending queue length,
> probably due to some issue with our version of pktgen.
>
> It is mostly a port-by-hand type of thing since
> there are lots of conflicts.  Let me know if you'd
> like me to post my version (and plz confirm your
> signed-off-by).

please! (and cc cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net)

I'm hoping this string of patches will have some bearing on my own
bug: http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/379

(while I'm trying to not write a line of code for a while, others on my
 list are struggling with this)

>
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
> --
> Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
> Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



-- 
Dave Täht
SKYPE: davetaht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
http://www.bufferbloat.net

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Ben Greear]

On 05/29/2012 08:22 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Ben Greear<greearb@candelatech.com>  wrote:
>> On 05/29/2012 12:07 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 08:23:20 PM Ben Greear wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/27/2012 08:08 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/26/2012 09:39 AM, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We started testing with two AR9380 NICs today (one AP, the other STA).
>>>> I applied Felix's skb optimization patch, and the ath9k memleak fix patch
>>>> on top of 3.3.7+.
>>>>
>>>> The system has 2GB RAM, but it is 32-bit kernel, so not all
>>>> is available to the networking code...  That said, the OOM
>>>> killer kills VNC and such.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I'll try some memleak debugging to see if
>>>> I can find any leaks.  It seems to me that we should
>>>> not actually OOM just by trying to transmit too fast
>>>> on a station interface :P
>>>
>>> well, there's that:
>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.ath9k.devel/8233
>>>
>>> It might not fix the bug, but it can save you time to confirm
>>> that is not related to this particular skb leak.
>>
>>
>> I ported this to 3.3.7+ and applied it to my kernel
>> trees.  It has tested out fine so far, though it did not
>> actually fix the problem I was having.  That was not
>> a real leak, just always-growing pending queue length,
>> probably due to some issue with our version of pktgen.
>>
>> It is mostly a port-by-hand type of thing since
>> there are lots of conflicts.  Let me know if you'd
>> like me to post my version (and plz confirm your
>> signed-off-by).
>
> please! (and cc cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net)
>
> I'm hoping this string of patches will have some bearing on my own
> bug: http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/379
>
> (while I'm trying to not write a line of code for a while, others on my
>   list are struggling with this)

For your bug, do you get any warnings on a serial console?

What does 'top' show?  Ie, why is the load so high?  Just
flogging the kernel with pkts shouldn't explode the load.

Maybe processes are blocked trying to take a lock..maybe
a networking lock?

Tried enabling lockdep in this scenario, and maybe the
hard/soft deadlock detection logic?

If you back off the traffic, does the system recover?  If so,
maybe your CPU just can't handle the load....

If you think the mac80211 pending queues are backing up, cat out
/debug/ieee*/phy*/queues

That was the symptom I saw today with pktgen, but I think that is probably
more the fault of pktgen and may not be an issue with more normal traffic
flow.

Thanks,
Ben


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

Re: [ath9k-devel] Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Sujith Manoharan]

Ben Greear wrote:
> We started testing with two AR9380 NICs today (one AP, the other STA).
> I applied Felix's skb optimization patch, and the ath9k memleak fix patch
> on top of 3.3.7+.
> 
> When we generate traffic using a modified version of pktgen,
> the STA interface transmits at around 310Mbps for a minute or
> two, but then the system dies of OOM (and maybe worse..having
> trouble getting useful serial console log).  It died much faster
> before Felix's two patches were applied.
> 
> I disabled all of our network related buffer adjustments
> (ie, no longer increasing tcp_wmem, etc), and it still
> crashes.
> 
> The system has 2GB RAM, but it is 32-bit kernel, so not all
> is available to the networking code...  That said, the OOM
> killer kills VNC and such.
> 
> Anyway, I'll try some memleak debugging to see if
> I can find any leaks.  It seems to me that we should
> not actually OOM just by trying to transmit too fast
> on a station interface :P

In my setup, UDP RX (AP->STA) locks up the station hard and eventually I get this:

[  292.093359] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 23s! [syslog-ng:403]
[  292.093555] irq event stamp: 12065793
[  292.093560] hardirqs last  enabled at (12065792): [<ffffffff81490855>] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x65/0x80
[  292.093579] hardirqs last disabled at (12065793): [<ffffffff814922ea>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x6a/0x80
[  292.093591] softirqs last  enabled at (4271834): [<ffffffff81059507>] __do_softirq+0x137/0x240
[  292.093605] softirqs last disabled at (4273355): [<ffffffff81492cec>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
[  292.093617] CPU 0 
[  292.093826] Pid: 403, comm: syslog-ng Tainted: G           O 3.4.0-wl #21 LENOVO 7661GN4/7661GN4
[  292.093841] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8149085a>]  [<ffffffff8149085a>] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x6a/0x80
[  292.093855] RSP: 0018:ffff88007d403c90  EFLAGS: 00000282
[  292.093862] RAX: ffff880037526dd0 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000002
[  292.093869] RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: ffff880037527428 RDI: 0000000000000282
[  292.093876] RBP: ffff88007d403ca0 R08: ffff8800755f5048 R09: 0000000000000005
[  292.093883] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff88007d403c08
[  292.093889] R13: ffffffff814922ef R14: ffff88007d403ca0 R15: ffffffff81a65c80
[  292.093897] FS:  00007f6c0dc5db00(0000) GS:ffff88007d400000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[  292.093905] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[  292.093911] CR2: 00007f35a1fbe1c3 CR3: 0000000075490000 CR4: 00000000000007f0
[  292.093918] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
[  292.093925] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
[  292.093933] Process syslog-ng (pid: 403, threadinfo ffff8800789de000, task ffff880037526dd0)
[  292.093939] Stack:
[  292.093943]  ffff8800755f5000 0000000000000282 ffff88007d403cc0 ffffffff81270aa2
[  292.093960]  00000000000007b6 0000000000000040 ffff88007d403d10 ffffffff812720fe
[  292.093975]  0000000000000000 0000000001000000 ffff88007d403d10 ffff880075155700
[  292.093990] Call Trace:
[  292.093995]  <IRQ> 
[  292.094006]  [<ffffffff81270aa2>] dma_entry_alloc+0x62/0x90
[  292.094017]  [<ffffffff812720fe>] debug_dma_map_page+0x7e/0x140
[  292.094037]  [<ffffffffa06b3669>] ath_rx_tasklet+0x969/0x1f10 [ath9k]
[  292.094056]  [<ffffffffa06b0054>] ath9k_tasklet+0x104/0x180 [ath9k]
[  292.094068]  [<ffffffff8105a073>] tasklet_action+0x83/0x110
[  292.094079]  [<ffffffff81059498>] __do_softirq+0xc8/0x240
[  292.094091]  [<ffffffff81492cec>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
[  292.094102]  [<ffffffff81016855>] do_softirq+0xa5/0xe0
[  292.094113]  [<ffffffff81059986>] irq_exit+0xa6/0xe0
[  292.094124]  [<ffffffff81493583>] do_IRQ+0x63/0xe0
[  292.094134]  [<ffffffff81490cef>] common_interrupt+0x6f/0x6f
[  292.094140]  <EOI> 
[  292.094150]  [<ffffffff810aeafc>] ? mark_held_locks+0x8c/0x110
[  292.094162]  [<ffffffff8149085a>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x6a/0x80
[  292.094173]  [<ffffffff8107fd23>] __wake_up+0x53/0x70
[  292.094196]  [<ffffffffa022af3c>] jbd2_journal_stop+0x24c/0x2c0 [jbd2]
[  292.094246]  [<ffffffffa0275788>] __ext4_journal_stop+0x78/0xa0 [ext4]
[  292.094278]  [<ffffffffa025a5ad>] ext4_da_write_end+0xad/0x390 [ext4]
[  292.094293]  [<ffffffff81116d03>] generic_file_buffered_write+0x1a3/0x2c0
[  292.094309]  [<ffffffff8148dba7>] ? mutex_lock_nested+0x2f7/0x3d0
[  292.094321]  [<ffffffff81118c4a>] __generic_file_aio_write+0x22a/0x440
[  292.094334]  [<ffffffff81118ed3>] generic_file_aio_write+0x73/0xe0
[  292.094363]  [<ffffffffa025136f>] ext4_file_write+0xaf/0x270 [ext4]
[  292.094374]  [<ffffffff810adcf0>] ? lock_release_non_nested+0xa0/0x2e0
[  292.094403]  [<ffffffffa02512c0>] ? ext4_file_mmap+0x60/0x60 [ext4]
[  292.094415]  [<ffffffff8117c472>] do_sync_readv_writev+0xd2/0x110
[  292.094427]  [<ffffffff8113bd23>] ? might_fault+0x53/0xb0
[  292.094438]  [<ffffffff8120aa0c>] ? security_file_permission+0x2c/0xb0
[  292.094449]  [<ffffffff8117bb91>] ? rw_verify_area+0x61/0xf0
[  292.094460]  [<ffffffff8117c75b>] do_readv_writev+0xdb/0x1f0
[  292.094470]  [<ffffffff810adcf0>] ? lock_release_non_nested+0xa0/0x2e0
[  292.094481]  [<ffffffff8113bd23>] ? might_fault+0x53/0xb0
[  292.094491]  [<ffffffff814917d5>] ? sysret_check+0x22/0x5d
[  292.094502]  [<ffffffff8117c8a5>] vfs_writev+0x35/0x60
[  292.094511]  [<ffffffff8117ca3a>] sys_writev+0x4a/0xc0
[  292.094523]  [<ffffffff814917a9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[  292.094530] Code: ff 65 48 8b 04 25 70 c8 00 00 83 a8 44 e0 ff ff 01 48 8b 80 38 e0 ff ff a8 08 75 17 5b 41 5c 5d c3 e8 bb e4 c1 ff 48 89 df 57 9d <66> 66 90 66 90 90 eb ce e8 79 e9 ff ff eb e2 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 


Or, this is spewed in the log:


[ 1934.719823] INFO: rcu_preempt self-detected stall on CPU { 1}  (t=18000 jiffies)
[ 1934.719830] sending NMI to all CPUs:
[ 1934.719830] NMI backtrace for cpu 1
[ 1934.719830] CPU 1 
[ 1934.719830] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/1 Tainted: G           O 3.4.0-wl #21 LENOVO 7661GN4/7661GN4
[ 1934.719830] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8125e302>]  [<ffffffff8125e302>] __const_udelay+0x12/0x40
[ 1934.719830] RSP: 0018:ffff88007d503600  EFLAGS: 00000006
[ 1934.719830] RAX: 0000000000000046 RBX: 0000000000002710 RCX: 000000000000f7f6
[ 1934.719830] RDX: 00000000005b54ce RSI: 0000000000000002 RDI: 0000000000418958
[ 1934.719830] RBP: ffff88007d503600 R08: 0000000000000002 R09: 0000000000000000
[ 1934.719830] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffffff81a397c0
[ 1934.719830] R13: ffffffff81a39880 R14: ffff88007d50e7c0 R15: 000001c27649776b
[ 1934.719830] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88007d500000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[ 1934.719830] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
[ 1934.719830] CR2: 00007ffbf709408a CR3: 0000000001a0b000 CR4: 00000000000007e0
[ 1934.719830] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
[ 1934.719830] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
[ 1934.719830] Process swapper/1 (pid: 0, threadinfo ffff880079840000, task ffff880079832f10)
[ 1934.719830] Stack:
[ 1934.719830]  ffff88007d503620 ffffffff8103698a 0000000000000002 ffff88007d50ec80
[ 1934.719830]  ffff88007d503670 ffffffff810e0bf3 0000000000000001 ffff880079832f10
[ 1934.719830]  ffff88007d503690 0000000000000001 0000000000000001 0000000000000000
[ 1934.719830] Call Trace:
[ 1934.719830]  <IRQ> 
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff8103698a>] arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace+0x6a/0x90
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff810e0bf3>] __rcu_pending+0x193/0x4e0
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff810e0fba>] rcu_pending+0x7a/0x90
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff810e20c9>] rcu_check_callbacks+0xd9/0x220
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81062ad8>] update_process_times+0x48/0x90
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff810a79e4>] tick_sched_timer+0x64/0xc0
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff810799d7>] __run_hrtimer+0x77/0x270
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff810a7980>] ? tick_nohz_handler+0x110/0x110
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff8107a6f7>] hrtimer_interrupt+0xd7/0x1f0
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81493669>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x69/0x99
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff814922ef>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x6f/0x80
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff810a9eaa>] ? lock_is_held+0xaa/0xd0
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff8138e00c>] skb_dst_set_noref+0x4c/0x80
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff813b826e>] ip_route_input_common+0xbce/0xf20
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff813b76a0>] ? ip_route_output_flow+0x70/0x70
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff813ba922>] ip_rcv_finish+0x3d2/0x570
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff813bb254>] ip_rcv+0x214/0x2e0
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81384836>] __netif_receive_skb+0x5d6/0x690
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81384351>] ? __netif_receive_skb+0xf1/0x690
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff8135aa07>] ? led_trigger_event+0x27/0x90
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81384f53>] netif_receive_skb+0x33/0x110
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffffa0405d92>] ? ieee80211_data_to_8023+0x182/0x440 [cfg80211]
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffffa05b5c53>] ieee80211_deliver_skb.isra.23+0xa3/0x200 [mac80211]
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffffa05b6b2b>] ieee80211_rx_handlers+0xd7b/0x2430 [mac80211]
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff810aec2c>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xac/0x190
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff810aed1d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81490867>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x77/0x80
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffffa05b8331>] ieee80211_prepare_and_rx_handle+0x151/0xa70 [mac80211]
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffffa05b8f8d>] ieee80211_rx+0x33d/0x8d0 [mac80211]
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffffa05b8cf6>] ? ieee80211_rx+0xa6/0x8d0 [mac80211]
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff810aeafc>] ? mark_held_locks+0x8c/0x110
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffffa073e994>] ath_rx_tasklet+0xd24/0x1f10 [ath9k]
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffffa073b014>] ath9k_tasklet+0xe4/0x160 [ath9k]
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff8105a073>] tasklet_action+0x83/0x110
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81059498>] __do_softirq+0xc8/0x240
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81492cec>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81016855>] do_softirq+0xa5/0xe0
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81059986>] irq_exit+0xa6/0xe0
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81493583>] do_IRQ+0x63/0xe0
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81490cef>] common_interrupt+0x6f/0x6f
[ 1934.719830]  <EOI> 
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff8101ce63>] ? native_sched_clock+0x13/0x80
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffffa032d332>] ? acpi_idle_enter_bm+0x26b/0x2b2 [processor]
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffffa032d32e>] ? acpi_idle_enter_bm+0x267/0x2b2 [processor]
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff8135848e>] cpuidle_enter+0x1e/0x20
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff81358ad6>] cpuidle_idle_call+0xa6/0x340
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff8101eee5>] cpu_idle+0xc5/0x140
[ 1934.719830]  [<ffffffff8147d376>] start_secondary+0x208/0x20f
[ 1934.719830] Code: 66 90 ff 15 39 6f 80 00 5d c3 66 66 66 66 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 55 48 89 e5 66 66 66 66 90 65 48 8b 14 25 98 3c 01 00 <48> 8d 0c 92 48 8d 04 bd 00 00 00 00 48 89 ca 48 c1 e2 04 48 29 


I am trying to see which option in the 'kernel hacking' section causes this,
because using my distro's stock kernel doesn't have any trouble in
transmitting/receiving large amounts of data. (Probably CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP).

> PS.  If anyone knows how to make minicom ignore page
> refreshes so that it doesn't obscure the last bit of
> the crash log when BIOS starts up again, please let me know!

There's a capture option in minicom.

Sujith

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Adrian Chadd]

.. yup, I got it to 250MBit UDP. :-)

It turns out that (at least in FreeBSD-9), the scheduler and sleep
state behaviour when doing adaptive power save/sleep state (ie,
adaptive CPU speed changes, going into C2) is enough to negatively
impact my iperf and ath/net80211 taskqueue scheduling.

When I nail it back up to C1, fixed speed - everything is perfectly fine.

I'll go and do some further digging into this, but it's good to see
that I can squeeze decently high throughput out of the 2x2 NICs.



Adrian

Re: Anyone doing WiFi throughput tests?

[Ben Greear]

On 05/31/2012 12:24 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> .. yup, I got it to 250MBit UDP. :-)
>
> It turns out that (at least in FreeBSD-9), the scheduler and sleep
> state behaviour when doing adaptive power save/sleep state (ie,
> adaptive CPU speed changes, going into C2) is enough to negatively
> impact my iperf and ath/net80211 taskqueue scheduling.
>
> When I nail it back up to C1, fixed speed - everything is perfectly fine.
>
> I'll go and do some further digging into this, but it's good to see
> that I can squeeze decently high throughput out of the 2x2 NICs.

I'm getting right at 250Mbps of UDP payload received when
using a 2x2 AR9382 NIC (WPEA-121N) in a Lenovo X220i (with hacked white-listed BIOS).
AP is a 3x3 AR9380 NIC (WPEA_127N) in Atom based network appliance.

Open-air connection, about 3 feet apart.  This is in
the 'download' direction:  Wired to Station.  HT-40 on 5Ghz.

The rates bounce around a bit...down to 240Mbps or so for a bit, then
back to 250Mbps.  Might be some other interference around as this is
a relatively noisy environment...

Upload speed seems to be a constant 243Mbps..at least at this moment.

Kernel is 3.3.7+.


Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com