On 9 May 2016 at 15:26, Michal Kazior <michal.kaz...@tieto.com> wrote: > Hi Roman, > > On 22 April 2016 at 19:05, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 19 April 2016 at 18:35, Valo, Kalle <kv...@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote: >>> Michal Kazior <michal.kaz...@tieto.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 19 April 2016 at 09:31, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 19 April 2016 at 08:28, Michal Kazior <michal.kaz...@tieto.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If my hunch is right there's no easy (and proper) fix for that now. >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the patchset patches (ath10k: implement wake_tx_queue) starts >>>>>> to use mac80211 software queuing. This introduces extra induced >>>>>> latency and I'm guessing it results in fill-in-then-drain sequences in >>>>>> some cases which end up being long enough to make fq_codel_drop more >>>>>> work than normal. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is required for other changes and MU-MIMO performance >>>>>> improvements so this patch can't be removed. >>>>> >>>>> But qca988x doesn't support MU-MIMO, AFAIK. >>>> >>>> Correct. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Can this be made chip dependent? >>>> >>>> I guess it could but it'd arguably make the driver more complex and >>>> harder to maintain. What we want is a long-term fix, not a short-term >>>> one. >>> >>> But we should never go backwards and TCP dropping from 750 Mbps to ~550 >>> Mbps is a huge drop, so this is not ok. We have to do something to fix >>> this, be it reverting the wake_tx_queue support, somehow disabling it by >>> default or something. >> >> I would agree with Kalle here. This looks like very serious regression. >> But I'm afraid I can only help with testing here. > > Can you give the following patch a try, please? I didn't get to > reproduce your problem on a real AP135/AP152 board and instead tried > to simulate a slow uni-proc system via KVM and cooling_device in > sysfs. The patch does improve things in this synthetic setup for me. > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath10k/2016-May/007526.html >
Unfortunately doesn't seem to make any difference at all (really, if there is, it's less than 10Mbps). Please see this thread also: https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2016-May/041445.html That is with your and Eric's patch applied. Regards, Roman _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k