[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

Hi list,

We're seeing some issue with reported mactime by the ath9k_htc (AR9271)
card. Here is a mesh node sampling peer beacons:

[  327.928774] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 80969926, now is:
80940131. offset == 29795
[  329.716530] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 82824946, now is:
82727604. offset == 97342
[  329.974276] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 83082820, now is:
82985314. offset == 97506
[  329.977528] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 83084622, now is:
82988562. offset == 96060
[  331.764782] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 84774638, now is:
84775531. offset == -893
[  332.022278] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 85064980, now is:
85033000. offset == 31980
[  332.025529] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 85033451, now is:
85036249. offset == -2798
[  333.814536] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 86824159, now is:
86824975. offset == -816
[  334.260908] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 87270487, now is:
87271277. offset == -790
[  335.861412] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 89100008, now is:
88871534. offset == 228474
[  336.119176] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 89128456, now is:
89129238. offset == -782
[  336.308535] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 89317801, now is:
89318590. offset == -789
[  337.909662] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 90951396, now is:
90919468. offset == 31928
[  338.168034] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 91209720, now is:
91177797. offset == 31923
[  338.171285] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 91211047, now is:
91181053. offset == 29994
[  338.356286] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 91463481, now is:
91366022. offset == 97459
[  338.734784] got beacon from f8:d1:11:65:92:e4 at 91743653, now is:
91744461. offset == -808
[  339.958041] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 92966623, now is:
92967531. offset == -908
[  340.217914] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 93226490, now is:
93227356. offset == -866
[  340.408290] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 93449578, now is:
93417704. offset == 31874
[  342.006291] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 95014620, now is:
95015461. offset == -841
[  342.264413] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 95272637, now is:
95273538. offset == -901
[  342.453286] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 95461607, now is:
95462386. offset == -779
[  342.833168] got beacon from f8:d1:11:65:92:e4 at 95939657, now is:
95842204. offset == 97453

The number after "at" is rx_status->mactime, "now" is drv_get_tsf(), and
offset (ie. stack delay) is mactime - tsf. RX_FLAG_MACTIME_MPDU is on for
all frames, and mesh sync is not adjusting the TSF.

How can we possibly receive frames from the future!?

Thanks in advance,
Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20121020/f93a87df/attachment.htm 

Re: ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

re-sending non-HTML to l-w.

Hi list,
 
We're seeing some issue with reported mactime by the ath9k_htc (AR9271)
card. Here is a mesh node sampling peer beacons:
 
[  327.928774] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 80969926, now is: 80940131. offset == 29795
[  329.716530] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 82824946, now is: 82727604. offset == 97342
[  329.974276] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 83082820, now is: 82985314. offset == 97506
[  329.977528] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 83084622, now is: 82988562. offset == 96060
[  331.764782] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 84774638, now is: 84775531. offset == -893
[  332.022278] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 85064980, now is: 85033000. offset == 31980
[  332.025529] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 85033451, now is: 85036249. offset == -2798
[  333.814536] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 86824159, now is: 86824975. offset == -816
[  334.260908] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 87270487, now is: 87271277. offset == -790
[  335.861412] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 89100008, now is: 88871534. offset == 228474
[  336.119176] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 89128456, now is: 89129238. offset == -782
[  336.308535] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 89317801, now is: 89318590. offset == -789
[  337.909662] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 90951396, now is: 90919468. offset == 31928
[  338.168034] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 91209720, now is: 91177797. offset == 31923
[  338.171285] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 91211047, now is: 91181053. offset == 29994
[  338.356286] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 91463481, now is: 91366022. offset == 97459
[  338.734784] got beacon from f8:d1:11:65:92:e4 at 91743653, now is: 91744461. offset == -808
[  339.958041] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 92966623, now is: 92967531. offset == -908
[  340.217914] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 93226490, now is: 93227356. offset == -866
[  340.408290] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 93449578, now is: 93417704. offset == 31874
[  342.006291] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 95014620, now is: 95015461. offset == -841
[  342.264413] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 95272637, now is: 95273538. offset == -901
[  342.453286] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 95461607, now is: 95462386. offset == -779
[  342.833168] got beacon from f8:d1:11:65:92:e4 at 95939657, now is: 95842204. offset == 97453

The number after "at" is rx_status->mactime, "now" is drv_get_tsf(), and
offset (ie. stack delay) is mactime - tsf. RX_FLAG_MACTIME_MPDU is on for
all frames, and mesh sync is not adjusting the TSF.

How can we possibly receive frames from the future!?

Thanks in advance,
Thomas

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

re-sending non-HTML to l-w.

Hi list,
 
We're seeing some issue with reported mactime by the ath9k_htc (AR9271)
card. Here is a mesh node sampling peer beacons:
 
[  327.928774] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 80969926, now is: 80940131. offset == 29795
[  329.716530] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 82824946, now is: 82727604. offset == 97342
[  329.974276] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 83082820, now is: 82985314. offset == 97506
[  329.977528] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 83084622, now is: 82988562. offset == 96060
[  331.764782] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 84774638, now is: 84775531. offset == -893
[  332.022278] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 85064980, now is: 85033000. offset == 31980
[  332.025529] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 85033451, now is: 85036249. offset == -2798
[  333.814536] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 86824159, now is: 86824975. offset == -816
[  334.260908] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 87270487, now is: 87271277. offset == -790
[  335.861412] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 89100008, now is: 88871534. offset == 228474
[  336.119176] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 89128456, now is: 89129238. offset == -782
[  336.308535] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 89317801, now is: 89318590. offset == -789
[  337.909662] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 90951396, now is: 90919468. offset == 31928
[  338.168034] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 91209720, now is: 91177797. offset == 31923
[  338.171285] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 91211047, now is: 91181053. offset == 29994
[  338.356286] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 91463481, now is: 91366022. offset == 97459
[  338.734784] got beacon from f8:d1:11:65:92:e4 at 91743653, now is: 91744461. offset == -808
[  339.958041] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 92966623, now is: 92967531. offset == -908
[  340.217914] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 93226490, now is: 93227356. offset == -866
[  340.408290] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 93449578, now is: 93417704. offset == 31874
[  342.006291] got beacon from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at 95014620, now is: 95015461. offset == -841
[  342.264413] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at 95272637, now is: 95273538. offset == -901
[  342.453286] got beacon from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at 95461607, now is: 95462386. offset == -779
[  342.833168] got beacon from f8:d1:11:65:92:e4 at 95939657, now is: 95842204. offset == 97453

The number after "at" is rx_status->mactime, "now" is drv_get_tsf(), and
offset (ie. stack delay) is mactime - tsf. RX_FLAG_MACTIME_MPDU is on for
all frames, and mesh sync is not adjusting the TSF.

How can we possibly receive frames from the future!?

Thanks in advance,
Thomas

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

Hi,


On 20 October 2012 19:32, Thomas Pedersen <thomas@cozybit.com> wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> We're seeing some issue with reported mactime by the ath9k_htc (AR9271)
> card. Here is a mesh node sampling peer beacons:
>

[snip]

> The number after "at" is rx_status->mactime, "now" is drv_get_tsf(), and
> offset (ie. stack delay) is mactime - tsf. RX_FLAG_MACTIME_MPDU is on for
> all frames, and mesh sync is not adjusting the TSF.
>
> How can we possibly receive frames from the future!?
>

1) Are you correctly merging the TSF32 values? Are you comparing TSF32
to TSF64, are you converting 32->64, etc? TSF32 wraps pretty quickly
and there's some kooky logic needed to make sure your TSF64 calculated
value is correct.

2) Are all your mesh nodes synchronised? Why don't you print out the
timestamp inside the beacon frame as well, and compare whether they're
all in reasonable sync?



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

Hi,


On 20 October 2012 19:32, Thomas Pedersen <thomas@cozybit.com> wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> We're seeing some issue with reported mactime by the ath9k_htc (AR9271)
> card. Here is a mesh node sampling peer beacons:
>

[snip]

> The number after "at" is rx_status->mactime, "now" is drv_get_tsf(), and
> offset (ie. stack delay) is mactime - tsf. RX_FLAG_MACTIME_MPDU is on for
> all frames, and mesh sync is not adjusting the TSF.
>
> How can we possibly receive frames from the future!?
>

1) Are you correctly merging the TSF32 values? Are you comparing TSF32
to TSF64, are you converting 32->64, etc? TSF32 wraps pretty quickly
and there's some kooky logic needed to make sure your TSF64 calculated
value is correct.

2) Are all your mesh nodes synchronised? Why don't you print out the
timestamp inside the beacon frame as well, and compare whether they're
all in reasonable sync?



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] Performance degradation when monitor interface is enabled

[Ali Abedi]

Hello,

I asked this question once before but didn't get a satisfying answer. In 
our experiments, with two laptops running Ath9k driver we get about 29 
Mbps bandwidth (802.11g configuration  + UDP traffic), but when the 
monitor mode interface is enabled on the sender the throughput drops to 
25 Mbps. This is not a performance issue. The performance is unaffected 
if monitor mode interface is enabled on the receiver (no monitor 
interface on sender). I really appropriate your answer.

Regards,
Ali Abedi

[ath9k-devel] Performance degradation when monitor interface is enabled

[Adrian Chadd]

On 23 October 2012 12:06, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I asked this question once before but didn't get a satisfying answer. In
> our experiments, with two laptops running Ath9k driver we get about 29
> Mbps bandwidth (802.11g configuration  + UDP traffic), but when the
> monitor mode interface is enabled on the sender the throughput drops to
> 25 Mbps. This is not a performance issue. The performance is unaffected
> if monitor mode interface is enabled on the receiver (no monitor
> interface on sender). I really appropriate your answer.

Start by looking at what's different. The only real change monitor
mode makes int he driver is fondling the RX filter.

It's possible that with monitor mode on, there's more stuff being
punted up to the driver on the receive side (all the other stuff in
the air) and that's causing things to slow down.


Adrian

[ath9k-devel] Performance degradation when monitor interface is enabled

[Ali Abedi]

Thanks Adrian. But there is no problem on the receiver side I assume 
(monitor mode is not enabled on the receiver). There are gaps between 
frames sent by the sender. It seems that the sender is waiting or doing 
something between frames (other than back-off, DIFS, ...) when the 
monitor mode is enabled on the sender.

Ali

On 10/23/2012 3:20 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 23 October 2012 12:06, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I asked this question once before but didn't get a satisfying answer. In
>> our experiments, with two laptops running Ath9k driver we get about 29
>> Mbps bandwidth (802.11g configuration  + UDP traffic), but when the
>> monitor mode interface is enabled on the sender the throughput drops to
>> 25 Mbps. This is not a performance issue. The performance is unaffected
>> if monitor mode interface is enabled on the receiver (no monitor
>> interface on sender). I really appropriate your answer.
> Start by looking at what's different. The only real change monitor
> mode makes int he driver is fondling the RX filter.
>
> It's possible that with monitor mode on, there's more stuff being
> punted up to the driver on the receive side (all the other stuff in
> the air) and that's causing things to slow down.
>
>
> Adrian

[ath9k-devel] Performance degradation when monitor interface is enabled

[Adrian Chadd]

On 23 October 2012 13:36, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Thanks Adrian. But there is no problem on the receiver side I assume
> (monitor mode is not enabled on the receiver). There are gaps between frames
> sent by the sender. It seems that the sender is waiting or doing something
> between frames (other than back-off, DIFS, ...) when the monitor mode is
> enabled on the sender.

I've no idea. You can try manually overriding the RX filter register
when monitor mode is enabled. See if that fixes it.


Adrian

[ath9k-devel] Performance degradation when monitor interface is enabled

[Ali Abedi]

Thanks for the answers. The performance issue theory doesn't make sense 
as we get the same lower (and stable) throughput on different machines 
with difference CPU powers or when power saving mode is enabled/disabled 
(which changes CPU clock frequency) on this machines.
The interesting thing is that when I remove the monitor interface the 
throughput remains the same (low). Isn't this a bug?

Thanks,
Ali


On 10/23/2012 4:51 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 23 October 2012 13:36, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> Thanks Adrian. But there is no problem on the receiver side I assume
>> (monitor mode is not enabled on the receiver). There are gaps between frames
>> sent by the sender. It seems that the sender is waiting or doing something
>> between frames (other than back-off, DIFS, ...) when the monitor mode is
>> enabled on the sender.
> I've no idea. You can try manually overriding the RX filter register
> when monitor mode is enabled. See if that fixes it.
>
>
> Adrian

[ath9k-devel] Performance degradation when monitor interface is enabled

[abhinav narain]

Can you elaborate on what is the bug exactly?
By this mail, you have proved; monitor mode doesn't cause any throughput
degradation !
You should see if the channel is really bad causing the throughput to go
down.
-
Abhinav Narain

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> Thanks for the answers. The performance issue theory doesn't make sense
> as we get the same lower (and stable) throughput on different machines
> with difference CPU powers or when power saving mode is enabled/disabled
> (which changes CPU clock frequency) on this machines.
> The interesting thing is that when I remove the monitor interface the
> throughput remains the same (low). Isn't this a bug?
>
> Thanks,
> Ali
>
>
> On 10/23/2012 4:51 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > On 23 October 2012 13:36, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> >> Thanks Adrian. But there is no problem on the receiver side I assume
> >> (monitor mode is not enabled on the receiver). There are gaps between
> frames
> >> sent by the sender. It seems that the sender is waiting or doing
> something
> >> between frames (other than back-off, DIFS, ...) when the monitor mode is
> >> enabled on the sender.
> > I've no idea. You can try manually overriding the RX filter register
> > when monitor mode is enabled. See if that fixes it.
> >
> >
> > Adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20121025/0db3425f/attachment.htm 

[ath9k-devel] Channel busy cycles

[Ali Abedi]

Hello,

I record the 4 registers showing tx, rx, busy, and total cycles. In a 
clean environment (checked with a spectrum analyzer) I expected to see 
busy = tx + rx. however, we have found that actually busy = tx + rx + 
constant. where this constant is rate dependent. For example for 54 
Mbps, the constant is about 1000 cycles. I have to note that this is an 
802.11g setup. Any explanation is appreciated.

Best,
Ali

[ath9k-devel] Channel busy cycles

[Adrian Chadd]

Hi,

Sometimes your TX isn't decoded, and is counted as noise. Hence not
showing up as RX.

RX is only 'frames the PHY RXed'. "busy" is "time the PHY reported the
signal level was high enough to consider the air busy, and thus not
available for transmitting."



Adrian

On 27 October 2012 12:24, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I record the 4 registers showing tx, rx, busy, and total cycles. In a
> clean environment (checked with a spectrum analyzer) I expected to see
> busy = tx + rx. however, we have found that actually busy = tx + rx +
> constant. where this constant is rate dependent. For example for 54
> Mbps, the constant is about 1000 cycles. I have to note that this is an
> 802.11g setup. Any explanation is appreciated.
>
> Best,
> Ali
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel

[ath9k-devel] Channel busy cycles

[Ali Abedi]

Thanks for the answer.
In this experiment we got 0% frame loss, so is your reasoning is still 
valid for this case? And why it is almost constant? I thought maybe RX 
is not counted for OFDM signal extension or OFDM preamble? Does that 
make any sense at all?

Thanks,
Ali


On 10/27/2012 7:42 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sometimes your TX isn't decoded, and is counted as noise. Hence not
> showing up as RX.
>
> RX is only 'frames the PHY RXed'. "busy" is "time the PHY reported the
> signal level was high enough to consider the air busy, and thus not
> available for transmitting."
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
> On 27 October 2012 12:24, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I record the 4 registers showing tx, rx, busy, and total cycles. In a
>> clean environment (checked with a spectrum analyzer) I expected to see
>> busy = tx + rx. however, we have found that actually busy = tx + rx +
>> constant. where this constant is rate dependent. For example for 54
>> Mbps, the constant is about 1000 cycles. I have to note that this is an
>> 802.11g setup. Any explanation is appreciated.
>>
>> Best,
>> Ali
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ath9k-devel mailing list
>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel

[ath9k-devel] Channel busy cycles

[Adrian Chadd]

On 27 October 2012 16:50, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Thanks for the answer.
> In this experiment we got 0% frame loss, so is your reasoning is still
> valid for this case? And why it is almost constant? I thought maybe RX
> is not counted for OFDM signal extension or OFDM preamble? Does that
> make any sense at all?

Did you check for hardware assisted retries or such?

Also, it's possible RX doesn't take into account the preamble and sig
parts. I'd have to ask the MAC/Baseband teams about the exact
mechanisms.

Thanks,


Adrian

[ath9k-devel] Channel busy cycles

[Ali Abedi]

We set retry to 1 and I have checked there is no retries at all. I would 
appreciate if you ask because we need to figure out what's going on.

Ali



On 10/28/2012 2:25 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 27 October 2012 16:50, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> Thanks for the answer.
>> In this experiment we got 0% frame loss, so is your reasoning is still
>> valid for this case? And why it is almost constant? I thought maybe RX
>> is not counted for OFDM signal extension or OFDM preamble? Does that
>> make any sense at all?
> Did you check for hardware assisted retries or such?
>
> Also, it's possible RX doesn't take into account the preamble and sig
> parts. I'd have to ask the MAC/Baseband teams about the exact
> mechanisms.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Adrian

[ath9k-devel] Channel busy cycles

[Adrian Chadd]

On 28 October 2012 06:59, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> We set retry to 1 and I have checked there is no retries at all. I would
> appreciate if you ask because we need to figure out what's going on.

Have you corrected for the fact that the counters aren't snapshotted,
so when you read each counter in order, the later ones will have
incremented a little further?

Eg, try shifting the order you read all the counters in and see if
that gap stays there.



adrian

[ath9k-devel] Channel busy cycles

[Adrian Chadd]

On 28 October 2012 15:12, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Thanks for mentioning this. It is important to check these things, but it
> did not affect the numbers. I really suspect that some portion of frames are
> considered "busy" but not tx or rx.

Ok. Well, you could try forcing a fixed rate with definitely longer
preambles and such.

How about comparing fixed-rate 11g OFDM versus fixed-rate 11a OFDM
versus fixed-rate 11b CCK (long and short preamble) ?



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] Channel busy cycles

[Wright, Brett]

> On 28 October 2012 15:12, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > Thanks for mentioning this. It is important to check these things,
but
> > it did not affect the numbers. I really suspect that some portion of
> > frames are considered "busy" but not tx or rx.
> 

I was thinking that perhaps busy includes virtual carrier sense (i.e
NAV) as well as busy due to CCA/noise?

[ath9k-devel] Channel busy cycles

[Adrian Chadd]

On 28 October 2012 20:49, Wright, Brett
<Brett.Wright@cooperindustries.com> wrote:
>> On 28 October 2012 15:12, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> > Thanks for mentioning this. It is important to check these things,
> but
>> > it did not affect the numbers. I really suspect that some portion of
>> > frames are considered "busy" but not tx or rx.

> I was thinking that perhaps busy includes virtual carrier sense (i.e
> NAV) as well as busy due to CCA/noise?

It does include CCA/noise. No idea about VCS/NAV. I thought it was
controlled by a line from the BB (RX_CLEAR) rather than VCS/NAV, which
is a MAC counter function. But I could be wrong.

I've punted the question internally; I'll post back when I have more details.

These can be easily tested though - just fake some NAV entries and see
if your busy counters go up.



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] Channel busy cycles

[Ali Abedi]

Here is an update from me.
I added a round-robin rate adaptation that cycles through all 11g rates
and I measured busy - (TX-RX) for all rates. This measure (busy - (TX +
RX)) does not decrease as we increase transmission rate all the time.
There are anomalies like rate 18. Please see the plot.

config:
802.11g, 1 sender 1 receiver, channel cycle information is collection at
sender. Retry 1. RTS/CTS off.
I can generate the plot for RTS/CTS on, let me know if you want to see it.

Thanks,
Ali

On 10/30/2012 09:29 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I've asked; SIFS is the only thing that's come back thus far.
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
>
> On 30 October 2012 18:24, Ali Abedi<a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca>  wrote:
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> Thanks for asking. Is there any update?
>> I think NAV is not the issue at least in our current setup, since we have
>> only one sender. And I collect channel cycle information at the sender, so
>> the only thing it receives are acks and beacons.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ali
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/28/2012 11:54 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> On 28 October 2012 20:49, Wright, Brett
>>> <Brett.Wright@cooperindustries.com>  wrote:
>>>>> On 28 October 2012 15:12, Ali Abedi<a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca>  wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks for mentioning this. It is important to check these things,
>>>> but
>>>>>> it did not affect the numbers. I really suspect that some portion of
>>>>>> frames are considered "busy" but not tx or rx.
>>>> I was thinking that perhaps busy includes virtual carrier sense (i.e
>>>> NAV) as well as busy due to CCA/noise?
>>> It does include CCA/noise. No idea about VCS/NAV. I thought it was
>>> controlled by a line from the BB (RX_CLEAR) rather than VCS/NAV, which
>>> is a MAC counter function. But I could be wrong.
>>>
>>> I've punted the question internally; I'll post back when I have more
>>> details.
>>>
>>> These can be easily tested though - just fake some NAV entries and see
>>> if your busy counters go up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: plot.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 160920 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20121031/e935b84c/attachment-0001.pdf 

[ath9k-devel] Fwd: FW: Channel busy cycles

[Adrian Chadd]

Hi,

For those interested in the TX/RX counter discrepancy that's been pointed
out here, here's a diagram which someone did up to explain the distinction
to me. He's ok with me publishing this; the timing values are for
demonstration purposes and shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Thanks,


Adrian

 ** **

Rx_clear count is almost accurate.  Rx_frame count is not the air time but
the time that the PHY takes to process a receive frame.  Tx_frame count is
the time to transfer TX data from the MAC to the PHY.****

****
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20121109/e340ecc2/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 12475 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20121109/e340ecc2/attachment.png 

[ath9k-devel] Fwd: FW: Channel busy cycles

[Ali Abedi]

Thank you. The plot I posted before shows dependency between 
transmission rate and difference between busy and rx+tx counters. Can 
you please explain more how this diagram address this observation.

Best,
Ali

On 11/9/2012 4:34 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> For those interested in the TX/RX counter discrepancy that's been 
> pointed out here, here's a diagram which someone did up to explain the 
> distinction to me. He's ok with me publishing this; the timing values 
> are for demonstration purposes and shouldn't be taken as gospel.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Adrian
>
> Rx_clear count is almost accurate.  Rx_frame count is not the air time 
> but the time that the PHY takes to process a receive frame.  Tx_frame 
> count is the time to transfer TX data from the MAC to the PHY.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ath9k-devel mailing list
> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20121111/98588474/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 12475 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20121111/98588474/attachment.png 

[ath9k-devel] Fwd: FW: Channel busy cycles

[Adrian Chadd]

On 10 November 2012 21:02, Ali Abedi <a2abedi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>  Thank you. The plot I posted before shows dependency between transmission
> rate and difference between busy and rx+tx counters. Can you please explain
> more how this diagram address this observation.
>

The point made by the MAC team is that TX and RX frame counts aren't
exactly "time spent in the air" but are "time spent transferring data
around internally."

So I suggest taking that diagram, adding your discrepencies in and see if
you can identify something systemic there.




Adrian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20121111/d3c48fe5/attachment.htm 

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your help.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> The number after "at" is rx_status->mactime, "now" is drv_get_tsf(),
>> and offset (ie. stack delay) is mactime - tsf. RX_FLAG_MACTIME_MPDU
>> is on for all frames, and mesh sync is not adjusting the TSF.
>>
>> How can we possibly receive frames from the future!?
>>
>
> 1) Are you correctly merging the TSF32 values? Are you comparing TSF32
> to TSF64, are you converting 32->64, etc? TSF32 wraps pretty quickly
> and there's some kooky logic needed to make sure your TSF64 calculated
> value is correct.

It looks like the mactime reported by ath9k_htc already comes as a 64
bit value straight from the firmware in
(ath9k_htc_rx_status)->rs_timestamp. All variables involved are u64.

> 2) Are all your mesh nodes synchronised? Why don't you print out the
> timestamp inside the beacon frame as well, and compare whether they're
> all in reasonable sync?

I think the sync code currently just tries to account for clock drift.
Unfortunately this too is relying on an accurate mactime reading, so
bogus mactimes are interpreted as large clock drift :(

Some more output from a single peer:

[  721.451551] got beacon with ts 641025272 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 651540784, now is: 651508959. offset == 31825
[  723.498926] got beacon with ts 643072384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 653784502, now is: 653556017. offset == 228485
[  725.547303] got beacon with ts 645120384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 655603123, now is: 655604082. offset == -959
[  731.692319] got beacon with ts 651264414 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 661779913, now is: 661748125. offset == 31788
[  733.741433] got beacon with ts 653313270 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 663795998, now is: 663796927. offset == -929
[  735.788803] got beacon with ts 655360384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 665843110, now is: 665843976. offset == -866
[  739.885435] got beacon with ts 659456384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 670037411, now is: 669939978. offset == 97433
[  741.933810] got beacon with ts 661504529 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 671987247, now is: 671988032. offset == -785
[  746.030328] got beacon with ts 665600384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 676312473, now is: 676083906. offset == 228567
[  748.078714] got beacon with ts 667648384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 678163865, now is: 678131958. offset == 31907
[  752.187941] got beacon with ts 671756958 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 682337969, now is: 682240565. offset == 97404
[  754.223820] got beacon with ts 673792384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 684307855, now is: 684276125. offset == 31730
[  756.271944] got beacon with ts 675840384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 686814606, now is: 686323937. offset == 490669
[  758.321077] got beacon with ts 677889131 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 688371831, now is: 688372745. offset == -914
[  760.369198] got beacon with ts 679937030 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 690419726, now is: 690420550. offset == -824
[  764.465200] got beacon with ts 684032384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 694547844, now is: 694515914. offset == 31930
[  766.513576] got beacon with ts 686080384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 696563073, now is: 696563975. offset == -902
[  768.561948] got beacon with ts 688128512 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 698611198, now is: 698612029. offset == -831
[  772.658704] got beacon with ts 692224497 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 702805482, now is: 702708141. offset == 97341

Again, offset here is "rx->mactime - drv_get_tsf()", which should never be
positive. Here are some interesting numbers:

[ 1234.229588] got beacon with ts 8429161802 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:d7 at 1164435178, now is: 1164207083. offset == 228095
[ 1234.247839] got beacon with ts 8429159489 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:2a at 1164224481, now is: 1164225454. offset == -973
[ 1234.556464] got beacon with ts 1181697231 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 1164565957, now is: 1164534031. offset == 31926
[ 1234.587093] got beacon with ts 8429573388 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:24 at 1164563800, now is: 1164564649. offset == -849
[ 1234.637841] got beacon with ts 8429570178 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:d7 at 1164614178, now is: 1164615399. offset == -1221
[ 1234.962592] got beacon with ts 8429978558 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:31 at 1164939247, now is: 1164940096. offset == -849
[ 1234.992221] got beacon with ts 8429978502 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:24 at 1165984724, now is: 1164969719. offset == 1015005
[ 1235.046093] got beacon with ts 8429978601 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:d7 at 1165022604, now is: 1165023584. offset == -980

Notice rx->mactime is not always steadily increasing, but the "future" frames
have sudden jumps in time. Frames with more moderate offsets seem to follow a
regular pattern, though.

Thomas

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your help.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> The number after "at" is rx_status->mactime, "now" is drv_get_tsf(),
>> and offset (ie. stack delay) is mactime - tsf. RX_FLAG_MACTIME_MPDU
>> is on for all frames, and mesh sync is not adjusting the TSF.
>>
>> How can we possibly receive frames from the future!?
>>
>
> 1) Are you correctly merging the TSF32 values? Are you comparing TSF32
> to TSF64, are you converting 32->64, etc? TSF32 wraps pretty quickly
> and there's some kooky logic needed to make sure your TSF64 calculated
> value is correct.

It looks like the mactime reported by ath9k_htc already comes as a 64
bit value straight from the firmware in
(ath9k_htc_rx_status)->rs_timestamp. All variables involved are u64.

> 2) Are all your mesh nodes synchronised? Why don't you print out the
> timestamp inside the beacon frame as well, and compare whether they're
> all in reasonable sync?

I think the sync code currently just tries to account for clock drift.
Unfortunately this too is relying on an accurate mactime reading, so
bogus mactimes are interpreted as large clock drift :(

Some more output from a single peer:

[  721.451551] got beacon with ts 641025272 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 651540784, now is: 651508959. offset == 31825
[  723.498926] got beacon with ts 643072384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 653784502, now is: 653556017. offset == 228485
[  725.547303] got beacon with ts 645120384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 655603123, now is: 655604082. offset == -959
[  731.692319] got beacon with ts 651264414 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 661779913, now is: 661748125. offset == 31788
[  733.741433] got beacon with ts 653313270 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 663795998, now is: 663796927. offset == -929
[  735.788803] got beacon with ts 655360384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 665843110, now is: 665843976. offset == -866
[  739.885435] got beacon with ts 659456384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 670037411, now is: 669939978. offset == 97433
[  741.933810] got beacon with ts 661504529 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 671987247, now is: 671988032. offset == -785
[  746.030328] got beacon with ts 665600384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 676312473, now is: 676083906. offset == 228567
[  748.078714] got beacon with ts 667648384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 678163865, now is: 678131958. offset == 31907
[  752.187941] got beacon with ts 671756958 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 682337969, now is: 682240565. offset == 97404
[  754.223820] got beacon with ts 673792384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 684307855, now is: 684276125. offset == 31730
[  756.271944] got beacon with ts 675840384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 686814606, now is: 686323937. offset == 490669
[  758.321077] got beacon with ts 677889131 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 688371831, now is: 688372745. offset == -914
[  760.369198] got beacon with ts 679937030 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 690419726, now is: 690420550. offset == -824
[  764.465200] got beacon with ts 684032384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 694547844, now is: 694515914. offset == 31930
[  766.513576] got beacon with ts 686080384 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 696563073, now is: 696563975. offset == -902
[  768.561948] got beacon with ts 688128512 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 698611198, now is: 698612029. offset == -831
[  772.658704] got beacon with ts 692224497 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:d1 at 702805482, now is: 702708141. offset == 97341

Again, offset here is "rx->mactime - drv_get_tsf()", which should never be
positive. Here are some interesting numbers:

[ 1234.229588] got beacon with ts 8429161802 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:d7 at 1164435178, now is: 1164207083. offset == 228095
[ 1234.247839] got beacon with ts 8429159489 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:2a at 1164224481, now is: 1164225454. offset == -973
[ 1234.556464] got beacon with ts 1181697231 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at 1164565957, now is: 1164534031. offset == 31926
[ 1234.587093] got beacon with ts 8429573388 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:24 at 1164563800, now is: 1164564649. offset == -849
[ 1234.637841] got beacon with ts 8429570178 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:d7 at 1164614178, now is: 1164615399. offset == -1221
[ 1234.962592] got beacon with ts 8429978558 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:31 at 1164939247, now is: 1164940096. offset == -849
[ 1234.992221] got beacon with ts 8429978502 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:24 at 1165984724, now is: 1164969719. offset == 1015005
[ 1235.046093] got beacon with ts 8429978601 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:d7 at 1165022604, now is: 1165023584. offset == -980

Notice rx->mactime is not always steadily increasing, but the "future" frames
have sudden jumps in time. Frames with more moderate offsets seem to follow a
regular pattern, though.

Thomas

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

Hi,

can you please repeat this experiment but dump the TSF32/TSF64 fields
there as hexadecimal, rather than decimal?

I'd like to see if this is an example of "bad TSF32->TSF64 promotion".



adrian

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

Hi,

can you please repeat this experiment but dump the TSF32/TSF64 fields
there as hexadecimal, rather than decimal?

I'd like to see if this is an example of "bad TSF32->TSF64 promotion".



adrian

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 24 October 2012 14:22, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> can you please repeat this experiment but dump the TSF32/TSF64 fields
> there as hexadecimal, rather than decimal?
>
> I'd like to see if this is an example of "bad TSF32->TSF64 promotion".

Also, we should check to see whether the MAC is paying attention to
any beacon frames and updating _its_ timestamp using that beacon frame
timer.
That's one of the mesh-and-sta-and-ap-at-the-same-time problems - in
STA mode, the TSF gets fudged based on the AP TSF. In other modes this
doesn't necessarily hold.



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 24 October 2012 14:22, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> can you please repeat this experiment but dump the TSF32/TSF64 fields
> there as hexadecimal, rather than decimal?
>
> I'd like to see if this is an example of "bad TSF32->TSF64 promotion".

Also, we should check to see whether the MAC is paying attention to
any beacon frames and updating _its_ timestamp using that beacon frame
timer.
That's one of the mesh-and-sta-and-ap-at-the-same-time problems - in
STA mode, the TSF gets fudged based on the AP TSF. In other modes this
doesn't necessarily hold.



Adrian

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:26:05PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 14:22, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > can you please repeat this experiment but dump the TSF32/TSF64 fields
> > there as hexadecimal, rather than decimal?
> >
> > I'd like to see if this is an example of "bad TSF32->TSF64 promotion".
> 
> Also, we should check to see whether the MAC is paying attention to
> any beacon frames

How? For mesh mode support we currently just reuse the WDS AP firmware vif
opmode.

> and updating _its_ timestamp using that beacon frame timer.  That's
> one of the mesh-and-sta-and-ap-at-the-same-time problems - in
> STA mode, the TSF gets fudged based on the AP TSF. In other modes this
> doesn't necessarily hold.

OK, but the TSF for AP shouldn't be automatically updated on other
beacons, right?

Thanks again,
Thomas

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:26:05PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 14:22, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > can you please repeat this experiment but dump the TSF32/TSF64 fields
> > there as hexadecimal, rather than decimal?
> >
> > I'd like to see if this is an example of "bad TSF32->TSF64 promotion".
> 
> Also, we should check to see whether the MAC is paying attention to
> any beacon frames

How? For mesh mode support we currently just reuse the WDS AP firmware vif
opmode.

> and updating _its_ timestamp using that beacon frame timer.  That's
> one of the mesh-and-sta-and-ap-at-the-same-time problems - in
> STA mode, the TSF gets fudged based on the AP TSF. In other modes this
> doesn't necessarily hold.

OK, but the TSF for AP shouldn't be automatically updated on other
beacons, right?

Thanks again,
Thomas

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 24 October 2012 15:08, Thomas Pedersen <thomas@cozybit.com> wrote:

>> Also, we should check to see whether the MAC is paying attention to
>> any beacon frames
>
> How? For mesh mode support we currently just reuse the WDS AP firmware vif
> opmode.
>
>> and updating _its_ timestamp using that beacon frame timer.  That's
>> one of the mesh-and-sta-and-ap-at-the-same-time problems - in
>> STA mode, the TSF gets fudged based on the AP TSF. In other modes this
>> doesn't necessarily hold.
>
> OK, but the TSF for AP shouldn't be automatically updated on other
> beacons, right?

Right but look at those AP macs, there's multiple overlapping TSFs there, right?

* Each MAC AP has an incrementing TSF;
* Multiple APs have different TSF spaces, they're not synchronised at all;
* There's one RX TSF namespace - if the vif is in AP mode then it's
free-running and not synchronising against any other TSF;
* Thus the above makes sense to me.

So far the beacon frames look correct and they're increasing; you're
not obviously synchronising TSF against anything.

Going back to the original question - you fetch TSF after you receive
the packet, and sometimes the TSF in the frame is greater than the TSF
read back by the ath9k TSF get method.
The ath9k_htc tsf read is just 'tsf = ath9k_hw_gettsf64(priv->ah);',
so it's doing direct register reads. That should be immediate, but
it's USB so it may take a while.

So hm, now you've made me open the ath9k_htc firmware source. I hate you.

Let me look.



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 24 October 2012 15:08, Thomas Pedersen <thomas@cozybit.com> wrote:

>> Also, we should check to see whether the MAC is paying attention to
>> any beacon frames
>
> How? For mesh mode support we currently just reuse the WDS AP firmware vif
> opmode.
>
>> and updating _its_ timestamp using that beacon frame timer.  That's
>> one of the mesh-and-sta-and-ap-at-the-same-time problems - in
>> STA mode, the TSF gets fudged based on the AP TSF. In other modes this
>> doesn't necessarily hold.
>
> OK, but the TSF for AP shouldn't be automatically updated on other
> beacons, right?

Right but look at those AP macs, there's multiple overlapping TSFs there, right?

* Each MAC AP has an incrementing TSF;
* Multiple APs have different TSF spaces, they're not synchronised at all;
* There's one RX TSF namespace - if the vif is in AP mode then it's
free-running and not synchronising against any other TSF;
* Thus the above makes sense to me.

So far the beacon frames look correct and they're increasing; you're
not obviously synchronising TSF against anything.

Going back to the original question - you fetch TSF after you receive
the packet, and sometimes the TSF in the frame is greater than the TSF
read back by the ath9k TSF get method.
The ath9k_htc tsf read is just 'tsf = ath9k_hw_gettsf64(priv->ah);',
so it's doing direct register reads. That should be immediate, but
it's USB so it may take a while.

So hm, now you've made me open the ath9k_htc firmware source. I hate you.

Let me look.



Adrian

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 24 October 2012 16:33, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:

> So hm, now you've made me open the ath9k_htc firmware source. I hate you.
>
> Let me look.

Yup, found it. The firmware TSF code was treating the TSF like it was
an older pre-11n NIC and only dealing with the low handful of bits.
Thomas has verified my test image works.

I'll go and see about pushing this into the tree so Sujith's next
ath9k_htc drop will include this fix.

Thanks for the debugging info Thomas!



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 24 October 2012 16:33, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:

> So hm, now you've made me open the ath9k_htc firmware source. I hate you.
>
> Let me look.

Yup, found it. The firmware TSF code was treating the TSF like it was
an older pre-11n NIC and only dealing with the low handful of bits.
Thomas has verified my test image works.

I'll go and see about pushing this into the tree so Sujith's next
ath9k_htc drop will include this fix.

Thanks for the debugging info Thomas!



Adrian

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 24 October 2012 18:54, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:

> I'll go and see about pushing this into the tree so Sujith's next
> ath9k_htc drop will include this fix.
>
> Thanks for the debugging info Thomas!

I've just pushed the fix into the tree. I'll privately email you
another image to test with just to make sure my committed fix is
correct.

The next release will have this fixed.



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 24 October 2012 18:54, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:

> I'll go and see about pushing this into the tree so Sujith's next
> ath9k_htc drop will include this fix.
>
> Thanks for the debugging info Thomas!

I've just pushed the fix into the tree. I'll privately email you
another image to test with just to make sure my committed fix is
correct.

The next release will have this fixed.



Adrian

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 24 October 2012 18:54, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:

> Yup, found it. The firmware TSF code was treating the TSF like it was
> an older pre-11n NIC and only dealing with the low handful of bits.
> Thomas has verified my test image works.
>
> I'll go and see about pushing this into the tree so Sujith's next
> ath9k_htc drop will include this fix.
>
> Thanks for the debugging info Thomas!

Thomas, is the TSF in the RX status descriptor actually 32 bits, or is
this a printing error?

The firmware side seems to be populating it with a 64 bit TSF value
and the rx_status field in question is actually 64 bits. Hence why I'm
confused.


Adrian

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 24 October 2012 18:54, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:

> Yup, found it. The firmware TSF code was treating the TSF like it was
> an older pre-11n NIC and only dealing with the low handful of bits.
> Thomas has verified my test image works.
>
> I'll go and see about pushing this into the tree so Sujith's next
> ath9k_htc drop will include this fix.
>
> Thanks for the debugging info Thomas!

Thomas, is the TSF in the RX status descriptor actually 32 bits, or is
this a printing error?

The firmware side seems to be populating it with a 64 bit TSF value
and the rx_status field in question is actually 64 bits. Hence why I'm
confused.


Adrian

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 18:54, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> Yup, found it. The firmware TSF code was treating the TSF like it was
>> an older pre-11n NIC and only dealing with the low handful of bits.
>> Thomas has verified my test image works.
>>
>> I'll go and see about pushing this into the tree so Sujith's next
>> ath9k_htc drop will include this fix.
>>
>> Thanks for the debugging info Thomas!
>
> Thomas, is the TSF in the RX status descriptor actually 32 bits, or is
> this a printing error?

Looking at the printk again, I'm pretty sure I'm just an idiot and the
printed value is being truncated to 32 bits. Will test and verify the
TSF wraps correctly again.

Thomas

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 18:54, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> Yup, found it. The firmware TSF code was treating the TSF like it was
>> an older pre-11n NIC and only dealing with the low handful of bits.
>> Thomas has verified my test image works.
>>
>> I'll go and see about pushing this into the tree so Sujith's next
>> ath9k_htc drop will include this fix.
>>
>> Thanks for the debugging info Thomas!
>
> Thomas, is the TSF in the RX status descriptor actually 32 bits, or is
> this a printing error?

Looking at the printk again, I'm pretty sure I'm just an idiot and the
printed value is being truncated to 32 bits. Will test and verify the
TSF wraps correctly again.

Thomas

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 25 October 2012 15:25, Thomas Pedersen <thomas@cozybit.com> wrote:

>> Thomas, is the TSF in the RX status descriptor actually 32 bits, or is
>> this a printing error?
>
> Looking at the printk again, I'm pretty sure I'm just an idiot and the
> printed value is being truncated to 32 bits. Will test and verify the
> TSF wraps correctly again.

Thanks.

There's a few other TSF tweaks that could go in after this - to make
things more correct around the wrap boundary.



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 25 October 2012 15:25, Thomas Pedersen <thomas@cozybit.com> wrote:

>> Thomas, is the TSF in the RX status descriptor actually 32 bits, or is
>> this a printing error?
>
> Looking at the printk again, I'm pretty sure I'm just an idiot and the
> printed value is being truncated to 32 bits. Will test and verify the
> TSF wraps correctly again.

Thanks.

There's a few other TSF tweaks that could go in after this - to make
things more correct around the wrap boundary.



Adrian

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:27:39PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 15:25, Thomas Pedersen <thomas@cozybit.com> wrote:
> 
> >> Thomas, is the TSF in the RX status descriptor actually 32 bits, or is
> >> this a printing error?
> >
> > Looking at the printk again, I'm pretty sure I'm just an idiot and the
> > printed value is being truncated to 32 bits. Will test and verify the
> > TSF wraps correctly again.

Yep, the TSF actually wraps to 64 bits correctly :|

[ 4394.156056] got beacon with ts         ABA184D3 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0a at         FEF0D969, now:         FEF0DC84. offset == -795
[ 4395.723180] got beacon with ts        1020E8597 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at         FF08C20E, now:         FF08C526. offset == -792
[ 4397.771811] got beacon with ts        1022DC649 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at         FF2802BC, now:         FF280671. offset == -949
[ 4406.446193] got beacon with ts         AC5D0568 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0a at         FFAC5A30, now:         FFAC5D68. offset == -824
[ 4412.109937] got beacon with ts        103088637 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at        10002C292, now:        10002C5F0. offset == -862
[ 4416.205946] got beacon with ts        10347041B from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at        100414070, now:        100414376. offset == -774
[ 4418.253827] got beacon with ts        103664224 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at        100607E74, now:        1006081C7. offset == -851
[ 4418.735826] got beacon with ts         AD188414 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0a at        10067D90F, now:        10067DC4B. offset == -828

Thanks,
Thomas

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:27:39PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 15:25, Thomas Pedersen <thomas@cozybit.com> wrote:
> 
> >> Thomas, is the TSF in the RX status descriptor actually 32 bits, or is
> >> this a printing error?
> >
> > Looking at the printk again, I'm pretty sure I'm just an idiot and the
> > printed value is being truncated to 32 bits. Will test and verify the
> > TSF wraps correctly again.

Yep, the TSF actually wraps to 64 bits correctly :|

[ 4394.156056] got beacon with ts         ABA184D3 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0a at         FEF0D969, now:         FEF0DC84. offset == -795
[ 4395.723180] got beacon with ts        1020E8597 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at         FF08C20E, now:         FF08C526. offset == -792
[ 4397.771811] got beacon with ts        1022DC649 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at         FF2802BC, now:         FF280671. offset == -949
[ 4406.446193] got beacon with ts         AC5D0568 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0a at         FFAC5A30, now:         FFAC5D68. offset == -824
[ 4412.109937] got beacon with ts        103088637 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at        10002C292, now:        10002C5F0. offset == -862
[ 4416.205946] got beacon with ts        10347041B from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at        100414070, now:        100414376. offset == -774
[ 4418.253827] got beacon with ts        103664224 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at        100607E74, now:        1006081C7. offset == -851
[ 4418.735826] got beacon with ts         AD188414 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0a at        10067D90F, now:        10067DC4B. offset == -828

Thanks,
Thomas

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 25 October 2012 17:41, Thomas Pedersen <thomas@cozybit.com> wrote:

> Yep, the TSF actually wraps to 64 bits correctly :|
>
> [ 4394.156056] got beacon with ts         ABA184D3 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0a at         FEF0D969, now:         FEF0DC84. offset == -795
> [ 4395.723180] got beacon with ts        1020E8597 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at         FF08C20E, now:         FF08C526. offset == -792
> [ 4397.771811] got beacon with ts        1022DC649 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at         FF2802BC, now:         FF280671. offset == -949
> [ 4406.446193] got beacon with ts         AC5D0568 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0a at         FFAC5A30, now:         FFAC5D68. offset == -824
> [ 4412.109937] got beacon with ts        103088637 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at        10002C292, now:        10002C5F0. offset == -862
> [ 4416.205946] got beacon with ts        10347041B from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at        100414070, now:        100414376. offset == -774
> [ 4418.253827] got beacon with ts        103664224 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at        100607E74, now:        1006081C7. offset == -851
> [ 4418.735826] got beacon with ts         AD188414 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0a at        10067D90F, now:        10067DC4B. offset == -828

Sweet, thanks for verifying that.



Adrian

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Adrian Chadd]

On 25 October 2012 17:41, Thomas Pedersen <thomas@cozybit.com> wrote:

> Yep, the TSF actually wraps to 64 bits correctly :|
>
> [ 4394.156056] got beacon with ts         ABA184D3 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0a at         FEF0D969, now:         FEF0DC84. offset == -795
> [ 4395.723180] got beacon with ts        1020E8597 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at         FF08C20E, now:         FF08C526. offset == -792
> [ 4397.771811] got beacon with ts        1022DC649 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at         FF2802BC, now:         FF280671. offset == -949
> [ 4406.446193] got beacon with ts         AC5D0568 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0a at         FFAC5A30, now:         FFAC5D68. offset == -824
> [ 4412.109937] got beacon with ts        103088637 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at        10002C292, now:        10002C5F0. offset == -862
> [ 4416.205946] got beacon with ts        10347041B from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at        100414070, now:        100414376. offset == -774
> [ 4418.253827] got beacon with ts        103664224 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at        100607E74, now:        1006081C7. offset == -851
> [ 4418.735826] got beacon with ts         AD188414 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0a at        10067D90F, now:        10067DC4B. offset == -828

Sweet, thanks for verifying that.



Adrian

Re: [ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:22:51PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> can you please repeat this experiment but dump the TSF32/TSF64 fields
> there as hexadecimal, rather than decimal?

Sure.

> I'd like to see if this is an example of "bad TSF32->TSF64 promotion".

Doesn't look like it:

[  147.074120] got beacon with ts         8CA003E9 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at          477E063, now:          4746393. offset == 228560
[  147.086876] got beacon with ts          4A381D8 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:24 at          477E5D6, now:          474956B. offset == 217195
[  147.124375] got beacon with ts          4A38B4C from 00:03:7f:10:4d:d7 at          475A460, now:          47527D4. offset == 31884
[  148.122624] got beacon with ts          4B32FAB from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0c at          487DF1F, now:          48462A1. offset == 228478
[  148.152501] got beacon with ts          4B321F4 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:19 at          484D3A3, now:          484D750. offset == -941
[  149.003626] got beacon with ts          4556180 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at          491CF79, now:          491D38B. offset == -1042
[  150.159007] got beacon with ts          4D26D99 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:09 at          4A3EE9A, now:          4A37231. offset == 31849
[  150.480503] got beacon with ts         8D1D045B from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at          4AFD5EC, now:          4A859D7. offset == 490517
[  151.053502] got beacon with ts          474A653 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at          4B19427, now:          4B117C9. offset == 31838
[  151.171133] got beacon with ts         8CDE845F from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at          4B2DFC6, now:          4B2E32B. offset == -869
[  151.183751] got beacon with ts          4E20D1E from 00:03:7f:10:4e:24 at          4B2EF59, now:          4B3147D. offset == -9508
[  151.224256] got beacon with ts          4E217D8 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:d7 at          4B3AF3C, now:          4B3B2A9. offset == -877
[  151.248882] got beacon with ts          4E22473 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:2a at          4B78FA7, now:          4B412D9. offset == 228558
[  152.216627] got beacon with ts          4F1A579 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0c at          4C2D336, now:          4C2D685. offset == -847
[  152.250129] got beacon with ts          4F1A5DE from 00:03:7f:10:4e:19 at          4C3D5DB, now:          4C3595D. offset == 31870
[  152.528127] got beacon with ts         8D3C41C7 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at          4C793B6, now:          4C7971C. offset == -870
[  153.134004] got beacon with ts          6978669 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at          4D0D1EF, now:          4D0D575. offset == -902
[  153.220143] got beacon with ts         8CFDC6F1 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at          4D3A2B7, now:          4D225DB. offset == 97500
[  154.256008] got beacon with ts          510EF18 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:09 at          4E1EE8D, now:          4E1F1E2. offset == -853
[  154.582264] got beacon with ts         8D5B9700 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at          4E6E883, now:          4E6EC38. offset == -949
[  155.149631] got beacon with ts          4B32180 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at          4EF909C, now:          4EF9410. offset == -884
[  155.253254] got beacon with ts          5208441 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:e7 at          4F1A58F, now:          4F128C8. offset == 31943
[  155.267500] got beacon with ts         8D1D01C4 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at          4F1D980, now:          4F15DC5. offset == 31675
[  155.280261] got beacon with ts          52082F1 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:24 at          4F1E0E7, now:          4F18FA5. offset == 20802

The TSF counter hasn't even wrapped 32 bits yet.

Thomas

[ath9k-devel] ath9k_htc and reported mactime

[Thomas Pedersen]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:22:51PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> can you please repeat this experiment but dump the TSF32/TSF64 fields
> there as hexadecimal, rather than decimal?

Sure.

> I'd like to see if this is an example of "bad TSF32->TSF64 promotion".

Doesn't look like it:

[  147.074120] got beacon with ts         8CA003E9 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at          477E063, now:          4746393. offset == 228560
[  147.086876] got beacon with ts          4A381D8 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:24 at          477E5D6, now:          474956B. offset == 217195
[  147.124375] got beacon with ts          4A38B4C from 00:03:7f:10:4d:d7 at          475A460, now:          47527D4. offset == 31884
[  148.122624] got beacon with ts          4B32FAB from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0c at          487DF1F, now:          48462A1. offset == 228478
[  148.152501] got beacon with ts          4B321F4 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:19 at          484D3A3, now:          484D750. offset == -941
[  149.003626] got beacon with ts          4556180 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at          491CF79, now:          491D38B. offset == -1042
[  150.159007] got beacon with ts          4D26D99 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:09 at          4A3EE9A, now:          4A37231. offset == 31849
[  150.480503] got beacon with ts         8D1D045B from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at          4AFD5EC, now:          4A859D7. offset == 490517
[  151.053502] got beacon with ts          474A653 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at          4B19427, now:          4B117C9. offset == 31838
[  151.171133] got beacon with ts         8CDE845F from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at          4B2DFC6, now:          4B2E32B. offset == -869
[  151.183751] got beacon with ts          4E20D1E from 00:03:7f:10:4e:24 at          4B2EF59, now:          4B3147D. offset == -9508
[  151.224256] got beacon with ts          4E217D8 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:d7 at          4B3AF3C, now:          4B3B2A9. offset == -877
[  151.248882] got beacon with ts          4E22473 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:2a at          4B78FA7, now:          4B412D9. offset == 228558
[  152.216627] got beacon with ts          4F1A579 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:0c at          4C2D336, now:          4C2D685. offset == -847
[  152.250129] got beacon with ts          4F1A5DE from 00:03:7f:10:4e:19 at          4C3D5DB, now:          4C3595D. offset == 31870
[  152.528127] got beacon with ts         8D3C41C7 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at          4C793B6, now:          4C7971C. offset == -870
[  153.134004] got beacon with ts          6978669 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:f7 at          4D0D1EF, now:          4D0D575. offset == -902
[  153.220143] got beacon with ts         8CFDC6F1 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at          4D3A2B7, now:          4D225DB. offset == 97500
[  154.256008] got beacon with ts          510EF18 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:09 at          4E1EE8D, now:          4E1F1E2. offset == -853
[  154.582264] got beacon with ts         8D5B9700 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:11 at          4E6E883, now:          4E6EC38. offset == -949
[  155.149631] got beacon with ts          4B32180 from 64:70:02:0a:4e:a8 at          4EF909C, now:          4EF9410. offset == -884
[  155.253254] got beacon with ts          5208441 from 00:03:7f:10:4d:e7 at          4F1A58F, now:          4F128C8. offset == 31943
[  155.267500] got beacon with ts         8D1D01C4 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:1a at          4F1D980, now:          4F15DC5. offset == 31675
[  155.280261] got beacon with ts          52082F1 from 00:03:7f:10:4e:24 at          4F1E0E7, now:          4F18FA5. offset == 20802

The TSF counter hasn't even wrapped 32 bits yet.

Thomas