Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [Bugreport] ath9k dynack not working/low performance on 5 & 10MHz
 Bandwidth
To:     Koen Vandeputte <koen.vandeputte@citymesh.com>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
References: <dd49d9f7-db40-4ab7-f24d-6ab4bbd0bb54@posteo.de>
 <fd620847-9786-07d2-23be-dba4cedc9089@citymesh.com>
From:   Petrosilius <petrosilius@posteo.de>
Message-ID: <2ffcf571-7068-c06f-3879-d02eacdc4895@posteo.de>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:12:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fd620847-9786-07d2-23be-dba4cedc9089@citymesh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

On 22.06.21 11:54, Koen Vandeputte wrote:
>
> On 18.06.21 13:13, Petrosilius wrote:
>> Hello Lorenzo Bianconi,
>>
>> we are running a set of R11e-2HPnD devices and having trouble getting
>> dynack working properly.
>> Setup:
>> * linux-5.4.123
>> * OpenWRT (current development branch) with wireless backports-5.10.34-1
>> * distance 2m between ap and sta
>> * Low ambient noise wifi environment
>> We experienced some non working dynack or low performance in the
>> connection due to too high calculated ackto's.
>>
>> Here is a ath9k debug output example for a non working dynack @ 10Mhz
>> BW:
>>
>> Wed Jun  2 19:08:50 2021 kern.debug kernel: [  400.500427] ath: phy0:
>> {48:8f:5a:3c:bb:03} tx sample 44905341 [dur 8720][h 29-t 30]
>> Wed Jun  2 19:08:50 2021 kern.debug kernel: [  400.500437] ath: phy0:
>> ack_ts 44844835 st_ts 44905341 st_dur 8720 [17-29]
>> Wed Jun  2 19:08:50 2021 kern.debug kernel: [  400.500445] ath: phy0:
>> ack_ts 44923425 st_ts 44905341 st_dur 8720 [18-29]
>> Wed Jun  2 19:08:50 2021 kern.debug kernel: [  400.554642] ath: phy0: rx
>> sample 44977693 [h 18-t 20]
>> Wed Jun  2 19:08:50 2021 kern.debug kernel: [  400.554701] ath: phy0:
>> {48:8f:5a:3c:bb:03} tx sample 44964984 [dur 6032][h 30-t 31]
>> Wed Jun  2 19:08:50 2021 kern.debug kernel: [  400.554710] ath: phy0:
>> ack_ts 44923425 st_ts 44964984 st_dur 6032 [18-30]
>> Wed Jun  2 19:08:50 2021 kern.debug kernel: [  400.554718] ath: phy0:
>> ack_ts 44977693 st_ts 44964984 st_dur 6032 [19-30]
>> Wed Jun  2 19:08:50 2021 kern.debug kernel: [  400.577890] ath: phy0: rx
>> sample 45000939 [h 19-t 21]
>> Wed Jun  2 19:08:50 2021 kern.debug kernel: [  400.577946] ath: phy0:
>> {48:8f:5a:3c:bb:03} tx sample 44998471 [dur 912][h 31-t 32]
>> Wed Jun  2 19:08:50 2021 kern.debug kernel: [  400.577956] ath: phy0:
>> ack_ts 44977693 st_ts 44998471 st_dur 912 [19-31]
>> Wed Jun  2 19:08:50 2021 kern.debug kernel: [  400.577964] ath: phy0:
>> ack_ts 45000939 st_ts 44998471 st_dur 912 [20-31]
>>
>> THe above output is generated in dynack.c by
>>
>>          ath_dbg(ath9k_hw_common(ah), DYNACK,
>>              "ack_ts %u st_ts %u st_dur %u [%u-%u]\n",
>>              ack_ts, st_ts->tstamp, st_ts->dur,
>>              da->ack_rbf.h_rb, da->st_rbf.h_rb);
>>
>> The ackto is afterwards calculated by
>>
>>          if (ack_ts > st_ts->tstamp + st_ts->dur) {
>>              ackto = ack_ts - st_ts->tstamp - st_ts->dur;
>>
>> Filling in the values of the first sample:
>>
>> (ack_ts > st_ts->tstamp + st_ts->dur) ?
>> (44844835 > 44905341+8720) ?
>> (44844835 > 44914061) ? ... not given
>>
>> Therefore a new ackto is not calculated and i can also see that in the
>> ack_to file:
>>
>> 600 A
>> 600 A
>> 600 A
>> ...
>>
>> These look like the default values to me (and do not change), but
>> ath_dynack_get_max_to() should return 750 A for our 10MHz BW case - this
>> looks also suspecious to me.
>>
>> For 5 MHz bandwidth there is a ackto calculated (~382 A, looks a bit too
>> high to me) but the performance is way below expectation (<1MBit)
>> For 20 MHz bandwidth there is a ackto calculated (51 A) and the
>> performance is fitting the expectation.
>> If you want to take a look at the logs for each of these cases for ap
>> and sta, you can download them here:
>> https://cloud.hs-augsburg.de/s/eworxkJoL6JXYzZ
>>
>> Did anyone else experience such a behaviour on non 20MHz Channels or
>> does anyone have an idea on where this behaviour might originate from?
>> I am not experienced in the ath9k driver code, but a uneducated guess
>> might be that the ring buffer where the dynack algorithm is taking its
>> frame-samples from is not behaving as expected for the 5&10MHz case.
>>
>> regards,
>> julian dorner
>
> Are you stressing the link?
> I'll try to simulate this later on
>
> Regards,
>
> Koen
>
Hi Koen,

we didnt stress the link that much.

There was only SSH from the ap to the sta running to get access to the sta.

regards,

Julian