Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <2e01fb1d5b8ff3335220231251f893c01c6c22d3.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: debugging TXQs being empty
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>,
        Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= <toke@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 05 Dec 2019 17:49:46 +0100
In-Reply-To: <49288397-55b3-f49a-e277-5197d7c1bea3@candelatech.com>
References: <bbc516f28782175b27ac5e19dcdeac13cd6ee76a.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <49288397-55b3-f49a-e277-5197d7c1bea3@candelatech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 (3.34.2-1.fc31) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 08:37 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:

> > All this seems to mean that the TCP stack isn't feeding us fast enough,
> > but is that really possible?
> 
> Does UDP work better?

Somewhat, I get about 1020-1030 Mbps. But still a TON of "TXQ of STA ...
is now empty" messages. Say this run got about 15 per second of those.

> or pktgen?

I haven't really tried, the setup is a bit complicated ... and it's
nowhere near me either :)

johannes