From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-x243.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::243]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ayKhB-00009N-7I for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 05 May 2016 14:56:05 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-x243.google.com with SMTP id f63so14260505oig.0 for ; Thu, 05 May 2016 07:55:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <57258F41.8040600@candelatech.com> <1462114043.512818296@apps.rackspace.com> Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:55:44 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] fq_codel_drop vs a udp flood From: Roman Yeryomin List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Dave Taht Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, David Reed , "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , Ben Greear , ath10k On 5 May 2016 at 16:55, Roman Yeryomin wrote: > On 2 May 2016 at 21:40, Dave Taht wrote: >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote: >>> On 1 May 2016 at 17:47, wrote: >>>> Maybe I missed something, but why is it important to optimize for a UDP flood? >>> >>> We don't need to optimize it to UDP but UDP is used e.g. by torrents >>> to achieve higher throughput and used a lot in general. >> >> Torrents use uTP congestion control and won't hit this function at >> all. And eric just made fq_codel_drop more efficient for tests that >> do. >> >> There are potentially zillions of other issues with ampdu's, txop >> usage, aggregate "packing", etc that can also affect and other >> protocools. >> >>> And, again, in this case TCP is broken too (750Mbps down to 550), so >>> it's not like Dave is saying that UDP test is broken, fq_codel is just >>> too hungry for CPU >> >> "fq_codel_drop" was too hungry for cpu. fixed. thx eric. :) >> >> I've never seen ath10k tcp throughput in the real world (e.g not wired >> up, over the air) even close to 750 under test on the ath10k (I've >> seen 300, and I'm getting some better gear up this week)... and >> everybody tests wifi differently. > > perhaps you didn't have 3x3 client and AP? > >> (for the record, what was your iperf tcp test line?). More people >> testing differently = good. > > iperf3 -c -t600 actually `iperf3 -c -t600 -R` for download, client POV _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k