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 <joerg.krause@emb
> > > > > ed
> > > > > ded.
> > > > > ro
> > > > > cks>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 5. August 2016 23:01:10 MESZ, schrieb Arend Van Spriel <
> > > > > arend.vanspr...@broadcom.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Op 5 aug. 2016 22:46 schreef "Jörg Krause"
> > > > > <joerg.krause@embedded.rocks>:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 Cwnd
> > > > > [ 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?
Best regards
Jörg Krause
