Return-path: Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.142]:37429 "EHLO mout02.posteo.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751025AbcJKGOW (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2016 02:14:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1470429980.29489.10.camel@embedded.rocks> <1BCE83A1-AA47-438D-BC47-05AE53D40121@embedded.rocks> <1470492734.2120.0.camel@embedded.rocks> <6cdbbae7-8a56-6778-e886-68eeea7add15@broadcom.com> <1471873052.1683.27.camel@embedded.rocks> <40d15186-6ddf-a210-03de-2bbe21957f1d@broadcom.com> <1472505309.21429.3.camel@embedded.rocks> <1473860503.19492.19.camel@embedded.rocks> <27e007ed-57f6-4082-2f65-a11ba3b7f548@broadcom.com> <1474266984.7448.1.camel@embedded.rocks> <64180601-8d99-09fe-2db5-06c4ed7dd5d6@broadcom.com> <1474548738.11992.2.camel@embedded.rocks> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: TCP data throughput for BCM43362 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Krause?= Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:14:04 +0200 To: Arend Van Spriel CC: brcm80211-dev-list , Brett Rudley , Franky Lin , Hante Meuleman , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Franky Lin , Arend van Spriel Message-ID: (sfid-20161011_081432_890546_CB952DE2) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Arend, Am 22. September 2016 16:00:36 MESZ, schrieb Arend Van Spriel : >Op 22 sep. 2016 14:52 schreef "Jörg Krause" >: >> >> On Do, 2016-09-22 at 10:09 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >> > On 19-9-2016 8:36, Jörg Krause wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Arend, >> > > >> > > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 20:13 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >> > > > >> > > > On 14-9-2016 15:41, Jörg Krause wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi, >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 23:15 +0200, Jörg Krause wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mi, 2016-08-24 at 20:35 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On 22-8-2016 15:37, Jörg Krause wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi all, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I am back from vacation and I'd like to do more >> > > > > > > > investigations >> > > > > > > > about >> > > > > > > > this issue. Please see my comments below... >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Sun, 2016-08-07 at 13:41 +0200, Arend van Spriel >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On 06-08-16 16:12, Jörg Krause wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi all, >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > A bit weird email format making it a bit hard to >> > > > > > > > > determine >> > > > > > > > > where >> > > > > > > > > your >> > > > > > > > > last reply starts... >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Fr, 2016-08-05 at 17:56 -0700, Franky Lin wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Jörg Krause >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @emb >> > > > > > > > > > ed >> > > > > > > > > > ded. >> > > > > > > > > > ro >> > > > > > > > > > cks> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Am 5. August 2016 23:01:10 MESZ, schrieb Arend Van >> > > > > > > > > > Spriel >> > > > > > > > > > < >> > > > > > > > > > arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Op 5 aug. 2016 22:46 schreef "Jörg Krause" >> > > > > > > > > > : >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I'm using a custom ARM board with an BCM43362 wifi >> > > > > > > > > > chip >> > > > > > > > > > from >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Broadcom. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The wifi chip is attached via SDIO to the >controller >> > > > > > > > > > with >> > > > > > > > > > a >> > > > > > > > > > clock of >> > > > > > > > > > 48MHz. Linux kernel version is 4.7. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > When measuring the network bandwidth with iperf3 I >> > > > > > > > > > get a >> > > > > > > > > > bandwith of >> > > > > > > > > > only around 5 Mbps. I found a similar thread at the >> > > > > > > > > > Broadcom >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > community >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > [1] where the test was done with a M4 CPU + >BCM43362 >> > > > > > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > > an >> > > > > > > > > > average >> > > > > > > > > > result of 3.3 Mbps. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Interestingly, a BCM43362 Wi-Fi Dev Kit [2] notes a >> > > > > > > > > > TCP >> > > > > > > > > > data >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > throughput >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > greater than 20 Mbps. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Why is the throughput I measured much lower? Note >> > > > > > > > > > that I >> > > > > > > > > > measured >> > > > > > > > > > several times with almost no neighbor devices or >> > > > > > > > > > networks. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > This is a test sample measured with iperf3: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > $ iperf3 -c 192.168.2.1 -i 1 -t 10 >> > > > > > > > > > Connecting to host 192.168.2.1, port 5201 >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] local 192.168.2.155 port 36442 connected >to >> > > > > > > > > > 192.168.2.1 >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > port >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 5201 >> > > > > > > > > > [ ID] >> > > > > > > > > > Interval Transfer Bandwidth >Retr >> > > > > > > > > > Cwn >> > > > > > > > > > d >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 615 KBytes 5.04 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 56.6 >> > > > > > > > > > KBytes >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 622 KBytes 5.10 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 84.8 >> > > > > > > > > > KBytes >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 625 KBytes 5.12 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 113 >> > > > > > > > > > KBytes >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 571 KBytes 4.68 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 140 >> > > > > > > > > > KBytes >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 594 KBytes 4.87 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 167 >> > > > > > > > > > KBytes >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 628 KBytes 5.14 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 195 >> > > > > > > > > > KBytes >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 619 KBytes 5.07 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 202 >> > > > > > > > > > KBytes >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 608 KBytes 4.98 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 202 >> > > > > > > > > > KBytes >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 602 KBytes 4.93 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 202 >> > > > > > > > > > KBytes >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 537 KBytes 4.40 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 202 >> > > > > > > > > > KBytes >> > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >- >> > > > > > > > > > [ ID] >> > > > > > > > > > Interval Transfer Bandwidth >Retr >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 5.88 MBytes 4.93 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 sender >> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 5.68 MBytes 4.76 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec receiver >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Not overly familiar with iperf3. Do these lines >mean >> > > > > > > > > > you >> > > > > > > > > > are >> > > > > > > > > > doing >> > > > > > > > > > bidirectional test, ie. upstream and downstream at >> > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > same >> > > > > > > > > > time. >> > > > > > > > > > Another >> > > > > > > > > > thing affecting tput could be power-save. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > No, iperf3 does not support bidrectional test. >Power- >> > > > > > > > > > save >> > > > > > > > > > is >> > > > > > > > > > turned >> > > > > > > > > > off. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > What does iw link say? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > but I guess it starts here! >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I compared the results with a Cubietruck I have: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > # iperf3 -s >> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > > > > > > ---- >> > > > > > > > > > ---- >> > > > > > > > > > Server listening on 5201 >> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > > > > > > ---- >> > > > > > > > > > ---- >> > > > > > > > > > Accepted connection from 192.168.178.46, port 42906 >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] local 192.168.178.38 port 5201 connected to >> > > > > > > > > > 192.168.178.46 >> > > > > > > > > > port >> > > > > > > > > > 42908 >> > > > > > > > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 2.29 MBytes 19.2 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 2.21 MBytes 18.5 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 2.17 MBytes 18.2 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 2.09 MBytes 17.6 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 2.20 MBytes 18.5 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 2.64 MBytes 22.1 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 2.67 MBytes 22.4 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 2.62 MBytes 22.0 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 2.35 MBytes 19.8 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 2.30 MBytes 19.3 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 10.00-10.03 sec 83.4 KBytes 23.5 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec >> > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> > > > > > > > > > [ ID] >> > > > > > > > > > Interval Transfer Bandwidth >Retr >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 0.00-10.03 sec 23.9 MBytes 20.0 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 sender >> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 0.00-10.03 sec 23.6 MBytes 19.8 >> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec receiver >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > # iw dev wlan0 link >> > > > > > > > > > Connected to xx:xx:xx:xx:xx (on wlan0) >> > > > > > > > > > SSID: xxx >> > > > > > > > > > freq: 2437 >> > > > > > > > > > tx bitrate: 65.0 MBit/s >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > bss flags: short-preamble short-slot- >> > > > > > > > > > time >> > > > > > > > > > dtim period: 1 >> > > > > > > > > > beacon int: 100 >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Too bad RSSI is not in the output above. That may be >> > > > > > > > > due to >> > > > > > > > > a >> > > > > > > > > regression >> > > > > > > > > in our driver which has been fixed by commit >> > > > > > > > > 94abd778a7bb >> > > > > > > > > ("brcmfmac: >> > > > > > > > > add fallback for devices that do not report per-chain >> > > > > > > > > values"). >> > > > > > > > > However, >> > > > > > > > > the tx bitrate seems within the same range as the >other >> > > > > > > > > platform. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The Cubietruck works also with the brcmfmac driver. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > May it depend on the NVRAM file? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Not sure. Can you tell me a bit more about the custom >> > > > > > > > > ARM >> > > > > > > > > board. >> > > > > > > > > Does >> > > > > > > > > it >> > > > > > > > > use the same wifi module as Cubietruck, ie. the AMPAK >> > > > > > > > > AP6210? >> > > > > > > > > If >> > > > > > > > > you >> > > > > > > > > can >> > > > > > > > > make a wireshark sniff we can check the actual >bitrate >> > > > > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > medium >> > > > > > > > > density in terms of packets. Another thing to look at >> > > > > > > > > is >> > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > SDIO >> > > > > > > > > host >> > > > > > > > > controller. In brcmf_sdiod_sgtable_alloc() some key >> > > > > > > > > values >> > > > > > > > > are >> > > > > > > > > used >> > > > > > > > > from >> > > > > > > > > the host controller. It only logs the number of >entries >> > > > > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > scatter-gather table, but could you add the other >> > > > > > > > > values in >> > > > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > > function that are used to determine the number of >> > > > > > > > > entries. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > My board uses the BCM43362 chip solely (no Bluetooth) >> > > > > > > > attached to >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > SDIO interface of a NXP i.MX28 processor. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I added some additional printk() to >> > > > > > > > brcmf_sdiod_sgtable_alloc(). >> > > > > > > > These >> > > > > > > > are the values printed after modprobe brcmfmac: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [ 8.926657] sg_support=1 >> > > > > > > > [ 8.929440] max_blocks=511 >> > > > > > > > [ 8.932213] max_request_size=261632 >> > > > > > > > [ 8.935741] max_segment_count=52 >> > > > > > > > [ 8.939005] max_segment_size=65280 >> > > > > > > > [ 8.946095] nents=35 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks. That looks good. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Additionally I attached a xz compresses wireshark sniff >> > > > > > > > while >> > > > > > > > running >> > > > > > > > iper3 between the BCM43362 running as in AP mode with >> > > > > > > > iperf3 >> > > > > > > > as a >> > > > > > > > server and a PC in station mode running iperf3 as a >> > > > > > > > client. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Looking at the sniff it seems you captured on the >ethernet >> > > > > > > side. >> > > > > > > That >> > > > > > > does not give me any 802.11 specific info. Can you make a >> > > > > > > wireless >> > > > > > > capture preferably without encryption. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > You,re right! Sorry for this mistake. I did a re-capture on >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > wireless side now. >> > > > > >> > > > > Anything new about this? Anything I can do to help? >> > > > >> > > > I missed your previous email. Was already wondering whether to >> > > > ping >> > > > you. >> > > > Digging around in my email folders I found it so will take a >look >> > > > at >> > > > it. >> > > >> > > Did you had some time to look at this? >> > >> > Ehm. I still only see TCP stuff. To capture 802.11 management >frames >> > you >> > need preferably a dedicated device using monitor mode [1]. >> >> Stupid me! Now I used a monitor interface on a desktop to monitor the >> traffic between the BCM43362 operating in soft-AP mode and a notebook >> operating in managed mode. >> >> The BCM43362 runs the iperf server, the notebook the iperf client. > >Thanks. > >Week almost through so might next week. Did you had some time to look at this? Best regards Jörg Krause -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.