On 16 May 2016 at 01:34, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 May 2016 at 22:43, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.li...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On 6 May 2016 at 21:43, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6 May 2016 at 15:47, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <bro...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I've created a OpenWRT ticket[1] on this issue, as it seems that >>>>> someone[2] >>>>> closed Felix'es OpenWRT email account (bad choice! emails bouncing). >>>>> Sounds like OpenWRT and the LEDE https://www.lede-project.org/ project >>>>> is in some kind of conflict. >>>>> >>>>> OpenWRT ticket [1] https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/22349 >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.embedded.openwrt.devel/40298/focus=40335 >>>> >>>> OK, so, after porting the patch to 4.1 openwrt kernel and playing a >>>> bit with fq_codel limits I was able to get 420Mbps UDP like this: >>>> tc qdisc replace dev wlan0 parent :1 fq_codel flows 16 limit 256 >>> >>> Forgot to mention, I've reduced drop_batch_size down to 32 >> >> 0) Not clear to me if that's the right line, there are 4 wifi queues, >> and the third one >> is the BE queue. > > That was an example, sorry, should have stated that. I've applied same > settings to all 4 queues. > >> That is too low a limit, also, for normal use. And: >> for the purpose of this particular UDP test, flows 16 is ok, but not >> ideal. > > I played with different combinations, it doesn't make any > (significant) difference: 20-30Mbps, not more. > What numbers would you propose? > >> 1) What's the tcp number (with a simultaneous ping) with this latest >> patchset? >> (I care about tcp performance a lot more than udp floods - surviving a >> udp flood yes, performance, no) > > During the test (both TCP and UDP) it's roughly 5ms in average, not > running tests ~2ms. Actually I'm now wondering if target is working at > all, because I had same result with target 80ms.. > So, yes, latency is good, but performance is poor. > >> before/after? >> >> tc -s qdisc show dev wlan0 during/after results? > > during the test: > > qdisc mq 0: root > Sent 1600496000 bytes 1057194 pkt (dropped 1421568, overlimits 0 requeues 17) > backlog 1545794b 1021p requeues 17 > qdisc fq_codel 8001: parent :1 limit 1024p flows 16 quantum 1514 > target 80.0ms ce_threshold 32us interval 100.0ms ecn > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) > backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 > maxpacket 0 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0 > new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0 > qdisc fq_codel 8002: parent :2 limit 1024p flows 16 quantum 1514 > target 80.0ms ce_threshold 32us interval 100.0ms ecn > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) > backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 > maxpacket 0 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0 > new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0 > qdisc fq_codel 8003: parent :3 limit 1024p flows 16 quantum 1514 > target 80.0ms ce_threshold 32us interval 100.0ms ecn > Sent 1601271168 bytes 1057706 pkt (dropped 1422304, overlimits 0 requeues 17) > backlog 1541252b 1018p requeues 17 > maxpacket 1514 drop_overlimit 1422304 new_flow_count 35 ecn_mark 0 > new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 1 > qdisc fq_codel 8004: parent :4 limit 1024p flows 16 quantum 1514 > target 80.0ms ce_threshold 32us interval 100.0ms ecn > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) > backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 > maxpacket 0 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0 > new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0 > > > after the test (60sec): > > qdisc mq 0: root > Sent 3084996052 bytes 2037744 pkt (dropped 2770176, overlimits 0 requeues 28) > backlog 0b 0p requeues 28 > qdisc fq_codel 8001: parent :1 limit 1024p flows 16 quantum 1514 > target 80.0ms ce_threshold 32us interval 100.0ms ecn > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) > backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 > maxpacket 0 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0 > new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0 > qdisc fq_codel 8002: parent :2 limit 1024p flows 16 quantum 1514 > target 80.0ms ce_threshold 32us interval 100.0ms ecn > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) > backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 > maxpacket 0 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0 > new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0 > qdisc fq_codel 8003: parent :3 limit 1024p flows 16 quantum 1514 > target 80.0ms ce_threshold 32us interval 100.0ms ecn > Sent 3084996052 bytes 2037744 pkt (dropped 2770176, overlimits 0 requeues 28) > backlog 0b 0p requeues 28 > maxpacket 1514 drop_overlimit 2770176 new_flow_count 64 ecn_mark 0 > new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 1 > qdisc fq_codel 8004: parent :4 limit 1024p flows 16 quantum 1514 > target 80.0ms ce_threshold 32us interval 100.0ms ecn > Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) > backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 > maxpacket 0 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0 > new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0 > > >> IF you are doing builds for the archer c7v2, I can join in on this... (?) > > I'm not but I have c7 somewhere, so I can do a build for it and also > test, so we are on the same page. > >> I did do a test of the ath10k "before", fq_codel *never engaged*, and >> tcp induced latencies under load, e at 100mbit, cracked 600ms, while >> staying flat (20ms) at 100mbit. (not the same patches you are testing) >> on x86. I have got tcp 300Mbit out of an osx box, similar latency, >> have yet to get anything more on anything I currently have >> before/after patchsets. >> >> I'll go add flooding to the tests, I just finished a series comparing >> two different speed stations and life was good on that. >> >> "before" - fq_codel never engages, we see seconds of latency under load. >> >> root@apu2:~# tc -s qdisc show dev wlp4s0 >> qdisc mq 0: root >> Sent 8570563893 bytes 6326983 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >> qdisc fq_codel 0: parent :1 limit 10240p flows 1024 quantum 1514 >> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn >> Sent 2262 bytes 17 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >> maxpacket 0 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0 >> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0 >> qdisc fq_codel 0: parent :2 limit 10240p flows 1024 quantum 1514 >> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn >> Sent 220486569 bytes 152058 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >> maxpacket 18168 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 1 ecn_mark 0 >> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 1 >> qdisc fq_codel 0: parent :3 limit 10240p flows 1024 quantum 1514 >> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn >> Sent 8340546509 bytes 6163431 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >> maxpacket 68130 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 120050 ecn_mark 0 >> new_flows_len 1 old_flows_len 3 >> qdisc fq_codel 0: parent :4 limit 10240p flows 1024 quantum 1514 >> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn >> Sent 9528553 bytes 11477 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >> maxpacket 66 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 1 ecn_mark 0 >> new_flows_len 1 old_flows_len 0 >> ``` >> >> >>>> This is certainly better than 30Mbps but still more than two times >>>> less than before (900). >> >> The number that I still am not sure we got is that you were sending >> 900mbit udp and recieving 900mbit on the prior tests? > > 900 was sending, AP POV (wifi client is downloading) > >>>> TCP also improved a little (550 to ~590). >> >> The limit is probably a bit low, also. You might want to try target >> 20ms as well. > > I've tried limit up to 1024 and target up to 80ms > >>>> >>>> Felix, others, do you want to see the ported patch, maybe I did something >>>> wrong? >>>> Doesn't look like it will save ath10k from performance regression. >> >> what was tcp "before"? (I'm sorry, such a long thread) > > 750Mbps
Michal, after retesting with your patch (sorry, it was late yesterday, confused compat-wireless archives) I saw the difference. So the progress looks like this (all with fq_codel flows 16 limit 1024 target 20ms): no patches: 380Mbps UDP, 550 TCP Eric's (fq_codel drop) patch: 420Mbps UDP, 590 TCP (+40Mbps), latency 5-6ms during test Michal's (improve tx scheduling) patch: 580Mbps UDP, 660 TCP, latency up to 30-40ms during test after Rajkumar's proposal to "try without registering wake_tx_queue callback": 820Mbps UDP, 690 TCP. So, very close to "as before": 900Mbps UDP, 750 TCP. But still, I was expecting performance improvements from latest ath10k code, not regressions. I know that hw is capable of 800Mbps TCP, which I'm targeting. Regards, Roman p.s. sorry for confusion
