Received: by 2002:a25:8b91:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp926218ybl; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 12:06:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxdbPHfacSBa9cUJzL2sPbdqUs7dZwbdBRVqF1GYN8gdTxWl2+s3dCUT6Rl0vmRKjHJ4u0A X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:22cd:: with SMTP id q13mr815089otc.224.1580328381521; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 12:06:21 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1580328381; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=0QNrfa8Qh0mWeT2EZwk/rPWb1Ixj3xZXKoV1SUv/59Tc1kTEKs38Eehx1CPtktuiu9 w1SWchfCMcWiJg7i6b0YruzNSPRkd/zEcRHtyeXWjZj00tlRhgD0LbAzTc7qr2NeF6V8 rqZOMCrmmeDSwkXExyUIODXf36fTaENxBc5nYzlFMr9hvPgzzTebvOSw2nF2cujRIrK6 9BEGQw5deZIgukSv9pK2XxYg/06io0FmBAbY+3CpqtoOP8dBws3YNukketc93nSr4T00 Bvq9kY74idc+82o6+K4NB0XVskO0o7O4q/UxhuVYiEKDXLjC6ccixGqZLjRnitanhVUx fMfg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:organization:from:references:to:subject:dkim-signature :dkim-filter; bh=0L17oLQESNf5C6oISY/FQhy2dAOwohidEDMytGwxIYo=; b=v7WUjs2Hh89+tl+d/ynHlWj4k3M6yieZitM/XUNJxMFwgPadI8t5F2Wm7o56hn2GKL koPsALmvHBgVV5lwk9EgWYfodspQCJkS+pOzou5Mhvy0bNSs/DkoNDAGJncEB7RFdFvF Ls0+BtbBV70d6mQP5DuIiDuviI3ESuBXCsG50xr7KN3sU121uIPfut4wHO4GE9VLMzLo knXEtWkvxsCpy6KYdK2JMftzaUPkP3tjwwFRxABW42LsSrNDVEuI/1FIsOEn/FGVr2tz iR6fX+f164UL8In/6ogEwqPt98oMZqoEHVuFA5IoKC35pBWeyqPCbwXLW4y3au1dk94b XItw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@candelatech.com header.s=default header.b=JB4Mfezg; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=candelatech.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j2si1664563otr.255.2020.01.29.12.06.03; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 12:06:21 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@candelatech.com header.s=default header.b=JB4Mfezg; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=candelatech.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726823AbgA2UBS (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 29 Jan 2020 15:01:18 -0500 Received: from mail2.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.173]:54696 "EHLO mail3.candelatech.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726332AbgA2UBS (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jan 2020 15:01:18 -0500 Received: from [192.168.100.195] (50-251-239-81-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.251.239.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.candelatech.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7791C137585; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 12:01:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail3.candelatech.com 7791C137585 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=candelatech.com; s=default; t=1580328077; bh=0WjzaowM731hczakQcivHhJlR8L6RO03Am+V6PFvP1g=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=JB4MfezgXLyz3hrLG+FX5xNa1V9md+VgFdbYV8RSNOCUquIukb/7+VnSkkOVFLXzQ yZ+WlHm7tdmdtrDHj0RaV9u3yoo4qDbAdhwEvxfkQUPuWlUnMYGo2f554xiAsSqXth xEb5DV7d3Xda/u4x0uAZ9NjICHSQnB+11BUIewHw= Subject: Re: Strange performance issue when using two devices at once To: Marlon Smith , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <1580323191.26012.48.camel@gmail.com> <2e80a485-892d-3b29-19c7-38a9caa14f4b@candelatech.com> <1580325769.26012.54.camel@gmail.com> <6bcff97c-3b9b-7fa9-5101-80aca367ff84@candelatech.com> <1580327314.26012.59.camel@gmail.com> From: Ben Greear Organization: Candela Technologies Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 12:01:17 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1580327314.26012.59.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On 1/29/20 11:48 AM, Marlon Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 11:27 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: >> On 1/29/20 11:22 AM, Marlon Smith wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>>>> inĀ 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 deviceĀ 70:F1:1C:2E:AF:BB which performs >>> well >>> and does not affect the performance of the other two. >>> >> Have you tried a different AP? >> >> And also tried using the exact same MAC addresses configured on a >> different >> radio (like ath9k)? >> >> Thanks, >> Ben >> >> > > I have tried a different access point in a different environment but no > luck. I'll see if I can configure my laptop to use one of the > problematic devices' mac address. It might be tricky to determine, but if you can notice whether one of your station devices is (block-)acking the other's frames, that would be a good clue that it is a station side bug. A carefully inspected sniff, especially if you can put sniffer near one station and far from the other and so use RSSI as a sorting factor, should allow you to determine this. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com