From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:62660 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755676Ab0INWsb convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:48:31 -0400 Received: by iwn5 with SMTP id 5so6435964iwn.19 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:48:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:48:30 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [support] ath5k contention windows From: Nick Kossifidis To: Jonathan Guerin Cc: linux-wireless , ath5k-devel , Steve Glass , Wee Lum Tan , Marius Portmann , Konstanty Bialkowski Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2010/9/14 Jonathan Guerin : > Hi all, > > I have some behaviour I'm observing with some Atheros cards we use that > doesn't seem to match what the initvals of ath5k are set up to. These are > the cards I used: > http://www.mini-box.com/s.nl/it.A/id.387/.f > > I have run a saturated iPerf flow on a conducted testbed with both stations > being inside RF-shielding boxes. They are set to 802.11a mode, on channel 1. > I then parse the trace, looking for ACK-DATA pairs, and calculating the time > difference between them. From this, I remove the TX_TIME of the DATA frame, > as well as a DIFS: > > ACK_TIMESTAMP + DIFS + CONTENTION_TIME + DATA_TX_TIME = DATA_TIMESTAMP > > which will leave me with the CONTENTION_TIME. Dividing this time by a > SLOT_TIME will give me the slot which was chosen by the hardware. > > > According to the driver, in ath5k.h: > > #define AR5K_TUNE_CWMIN                15 > > CWMIN is initialised to 15. > > The actual distribution of contention slots I'm observing resembles this: > > Slot Number,Count > 0,1315 > 1,1302 > 2,1249 > 3,1291 > 4,1347 > 5,1219 > 6,1249 > 7,0 > 8,0 > 9,0 > > > as well as 1360 frames which came in with a negative CONTENTION_TIME. > > Ignoring the fact that some frames are coming up with a negative > CONTENTION_TIME (which potentially points to another problem), what is being > observed here is that CW_MIN appears to start at 7, rather than the 15 which > it should be. > > I'm just wondering if anyone would have any idea why this is occurring? > > Thanks, > > -- > Jonathan Guerin > What is your time refference ? Are the 2 stations synced to a point you can have such great accuracy ? -- GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-) Nick