Return-path: Received: from daemonizer.de ([87.230.16.230]:51695 "EHLO daemonizer.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751316AbXE0Ugw (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 May 2007 16:36:52 -0400 From: Maximilian Engelhardt To: Michael Buesch Subject: Re: b44: regression in 2.6.22 (resend) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 22:36:39 +0200 Cc: "linux-kernel" , "linux-wireless" , Stephen Hemminger , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Jeff Garzik , Gary Zambrano , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton References: <20070525172431.60affaca@freepuppy> <200705272125.25506.maxi@daemonizer.de> <200705272145.00796.mb@bu3sch.de> In-Reply-To: <200705272145.00796.mb@bu3sch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1631912.GuXSa6SRHs"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Message-Id: <200705272236.42628.maxi@daemonizer.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --nextPart1631912.GuXSa6SRHs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Sunday 27 May 2007 21:25:17 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote: > > 2.6.22-rc3: > > > > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46557 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001 > > [ 5] 0.0-60.4 sec 58.9 MBytes 8.18 Mbits/sec > > [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 51633 > > [ 4] 0.0-63.1 sec 7.27 MBytes 967 Kbits/sec > > Why do we have two different measurements here? Is one TX and one RX? > Which one? Yes, the first is TX (BCM4401 --> e100) and the second is RX. Both are tcp= =20 connections. I think iperf does display the ip addresses wrong in the secon= d=20 connection, but that's another issue. > > > koala:~# ping -c10 192.168.1.1 > > PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D1 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.243 ms > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D2 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.234 ms > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D3 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.238 ms > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D4 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.235 ms > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D5 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.230 ms > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D6 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.317 ms > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D7 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.232 ms > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D8 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.232 ms > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D9 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.228 ms > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D10 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.238 ms > > > > --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- > > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 8997ms > > rtt min/avg/max/mdev =3D 0.228/0.242/0.317/0.031 ms > > > > System responsiveness was the same as with 2.6.21.1. > > > > wget got 11.23M/s, again same as 2.6.21.1. > > > > > > 2.6.22-rc2-mm1: > > > > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 42198 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001 > > [ 5] 0.0-60.1 sec 402 MBytes 56.1 Mbits/sec > > [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 48598 > > [ 4] 0.0-63.0 sec 177 MBytes 23.6 Mbits/sec > > So with -mm (with ssb) you actually get better performace > then with plain 2.6.22-rc3? > > Can you elaborate a bit more about what you get an what you expect > on which kernel? When I ran 2.6.21.1 or 2.6.22-rc3 without any debugging tools just in norma= l=20 use I didn't notice any problems. It did work fine as I would expect it. I think the wget and ping tests here are as they should be. With 2.6.22-rc2-mm1 I noticed that connections seem to be slower. The ping= =20 test does confirm this, because here response times are very high. As far a= s=20 I can remember the wget download rate was a bit slower than 2.6.21.1 or=20 2.6.22-rc3 till it stalled. I would expect it to be someting like the other two kernels. The two proble= ms=20 I see are the high ping times and the fact that the card stopped working. I don't know why the iperf results are so different from my personal=20 experience. I guess the fact that I get so bad results with 2.6.21.1 and=20 2.6.22-rc3 is that iperf does something that causes the system to be=20 extremely slow and thus degrading performance. This could be a bug somewher= e=20 in the b44 driver of 2.6.21.1 and 2.6.22-RC3 that has unintended been fixed= =20 by the ssb switch, but that's only a roughly guess. Maxi --nextPart1631912.GuXSa6SRHs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGWevaOimwv528XGERAjKxAKDvRo+nKsr890vta1lDS/kdZOMYOQCfeXx7 M91ByEdu223aD5X7CR/K06w= =8OR6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1631912.GuXSa6SRHs-- -: 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