Hi Felix,
On 6/23/23 12:47, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 23.06.23 12:29, David Bauer wrote:
Hi Felix,
On 6/23/23 08:55, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 18.05.23 11:19, David Bauer wrote:
ath10k does not report excessive loss in case of broken block-ack
sessions. The loss is communicated to the host-os, but ath10k does not
trigger a low-ack events by itself.
The mac80211 framework for loss detection however detects this
circumstance well in case of ath10k. So use it regardless of ath10k's
own loss detection mechanism.
Signed-off-by: David Bauer <m...@david-bauer.net>
Please make a patch for ath10k instead of turning the flag into a no-op in
mac80211.
The rationale for removal was in fact to avoid patching ath1xk separately,
given these
are the only drivers using this flag.
I'm aware this is not the nicest approach, do you have any insight if there's a
downside
to always keeping mac80211 loss detection active?
I however still respect the preferation of keeping this limited to specific
drivers, I'm
just interested if there's a deeper rationale / problem i did not spot :)
Just to outline the issue this is trying to avoid - Intel clients started
dropping their
BA sessions sometimes in late 2020 without notifying the AP. The ath10k
firmware keeps
retransmitting exclusive to the device at the lowest rate while not indicating
a low-ack
situation to the host-os, avoiding station kickout. This results in very low
throughput
for all connected stations (aql enabled) up to DoS of the AP (aql disabled).
My rationale is this: changes to the driver dropping that flag can be
upstreamed, because your description implies that it fixes a real bug.
A mac80211 patch turning the flag into an no-op will be rejected, since it
doesn't make any sense to keep the flag around.
Thanks, I haven't looked at it this way. I will update the patch to account for
this.
If it turns out that all ath drivers can't use this flag because of the issue
you're describing, we can remove it upstream from mac80211 entirely instead of
turning it into a dummy no-op.
I was not at the point of upstreaming, as from reading the code the root-cause
is within
the firmware not reporting low-ack situation. So this requires to be evaluated
with all
existing platform-firmware in mind.
As a sidenote - the issue I'm describing also exists with QCAs own driver,
however the
ramifications there greatly differ from vendor to vendor.
Best
David
- Felix
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
