| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4C76A608.8060801@dualc.maya.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:36:08 +0200
From: Andreas <andihartmann@...enet.de>
To: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@...glemail.com>
CC: Kernel-Mailingliste <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ivo Van Doorn <ivdoorn@...il.com>, gwingerde@...il.com,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rt61pci - bad performance
Helmut Schaa wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Am Monday 23 August 2010 schrieb Andreas:
>> could you meanwhile locate a problem according the measurement I gave
>> you? I would be interested if these values are considered normal.
>> Unfortunately the ndiswrapper module doesn't provide data like this, so
>> I can't estimate the rt61pci measurement.
>
> I guess it is just the tx power handling in rt61pci that's not 100% correct.
> Your patch however might as well have a not 100% perfect effect. As you can
> see in the rc_stats file rates above 36Mbit are not used as they are too
> unreliable which could be a direct result of a too high tx power (your
> patching to a value of 25 without knowing what this value should be).
>
> However, I don't own rt61pci hw and don't have the time to review the tx power
> code in rt16pci but Ivo posted a patch yesterday that might be suitable
> to your problem "[PATCH 8/8] rt2x00: Fix max TX power settings".
Ok, I tested this patch against the opensSuSE compat-wireless-2.6.35-1.
First of all, the problem with the wrong tx-power disappeared:
wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:"...."
Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: ...
Bit Rate=54 Mb/s Tx-Power=20 dBm
Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
Encryption key:off
Power Management:off
Link Quality=36/70 Signal level=-74 dBm
Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
But the problem with bad transfer rates got worse:
from server -> client (download)
rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
attempts
1 0.8 89.9 100.0 0( 0) 25
25
2 1.8 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
5.5 4.8 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
11 9.1 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
6 5.5 96.8 100.0 0( 0) 12
12
9 8.0 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 123
123
12 10.6 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
18 15.5 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
24 20.3 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
36 29.1 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
t 48 37.4 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
T P 54 43.3 99.9 100.0 2( 2) 71701
71776
Total packet count:: ideal 1924 lookaround 101
netperf -t TCP_MAERTS -H client
TCP MAERTS TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET client (....) port
0 AF_INET
Recv Send Send
Socket Socket Message Elapsed
Size Size Size Time Throughput
bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
87380 16384 16384 10.61 10.61
from client to server (upload)
rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
attempts
1 0.8 89.9 100.0 0( 0) 25
25
2 1.8 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
5.5 4.8 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
11 9.1 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
6 5.5 96.8 100.0 0( 0) 12
12
9 8.0 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 123
123
12 10.6 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
18 15.5 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
24 20.3 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
36 29.1 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
t 48 37.4 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
T P 54 43.3 99.9 100.0 1( 1) 88674
88761
Total packet count:: ideal 8560 lookaround 450
netperf -t TCP_STREAM -H server
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to server (...)
port 0 AF_INET
Recv Send Send
Socket Socket Message Elapsed
Size Size Size Time Throughput
bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
87380 16384 16384 11.15 6.01
Is there a chance to repair this bad throughput?
Kind regards,
Andreas
>> Helmut Schaa wrote:
>>> Added rt2x00 mailinglist to CC ...
>>>
>>> Am Saturday 14 August 2010 schrieb Andreas:
>>>> Helmut Schaa wrote:
>>>>> Hi Andreas,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Freitag 13 August 2010 schrieb Andrew Morton:
>>>>>> (cc's added)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:49:49 +0200
>>>>>> Andreas<andihartmann@...19freenet.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:"--------"
>>>>>>> Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
>>>>>>> Bit Rate=1 Mb/s Tx-Power=5 dBm
>>>>>>> Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
>>>>>>> Encryption key:off
>>>>>>> Power Management:off
>>>>>>> Link Quality=38/70 Signal level=-72 dBm
>>>>>>> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
>>>>>>> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The throughput is measured with ping -f -s 7000 and xosview -n.
>>>>>
>>>>> This doesn't look like an appropriate way to measure the throughput. You
>>>>> should use something like iperf [1] or netperf [2] for your measurements
>>>>> to get more accurate results.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I'm using ndiswrapper with the windows driver, first of all, I can
>>>>>>> see additional information in iwconfig:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wlan0 IEEE 802.11g ESSID:"--------"
>>>>>>> Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
>>>>>>> Bit Rate=54 Mb/s Tx-Power:20 dBm Sensitivity=-121 dBm
>>>>>>> RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr=2346 B
>>>>>>> Encryption key:some key Security mode:restricted
>>>>>>> Power Management:off
>>>>>>> Link Quality:62/100 Signal level:-56 dBm Noise level:-96 dBm
>>>>>>> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
>>>>>>> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a switch for sensitivity (which is not supported with rt61pci)
>>>>>>> and the link quality compared with ndiswrapper is worse (38% to 62%).
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't trust the link quality values that much, the calculation in rt61pi
>>>>> is most likely different from what the windows driver does. So it is not
>>>>> really comparable.
>>>>
>>>> I detected the problem using tunneled ssh-x-sessions and during copying
>>>> of data. I'm not really interested in the link-quality - I just need a
>>>> high performance :-).
>>>>
>>>>>>> The following is remarkably too:
>>>>>>> ndiswrapper uses a Tx-Power of 20 dBm, rt61pci only 5 dBm. I don't know,
>>>>>>> why rt61pci uses 5 dBm. It's a hard limit and I can't set it on a value
>>>>>>> higher than 5 unless the driver is patched. Nevertheless, setting a
>>>>>>> higher value (of 20 dBm) by patch does not mean to get a better performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you elaborate please? Did you actually try to patch it or is this just
>>>>> an assumption?
>>>>
>>>> see my other mail!
>>>>
>>>>>>> Ndiswrapper shows an encryption key, rt61pci not. Does it mean, that
>>>>>>> rt61pci doesn't use hardware encryption?
>>>>>
>>>>> hw crypto should be enabled by default in rt61pci, however, I don't know
>>>>> if it is actually working ;)
>>>>
>>>> How can I see if it's working?
>>>
>>> You can add a printk to rt61pci_fill_rxdone, something like:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt61pci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt61pci.c
>>> index e539c6c..aa1aafd 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt61pci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt61pci.c
>>> @@ -2023,6 +2023,7 @@ static void rt61pci_fill_rxdone(struct queue_entry *entry,
>>> rxdesc->flags |= RX_FLAG_DECRYPTED;
>>> else if (rxdesc->cipher_status == RX_CRYPTO_FAIL_MIC)
>>> rxdesc->flags |= RX_FLAG_MMIC_ERROR;
>>> + printk(KERN_INFO "rt61pci_fill_rxdone: %x\n", rxdesc->cipher_status);
>>> }
>>>
>>> /*
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> With ndiswrapper, the rt61pci-chip achieves a throughput of 2,6 MBytes/s
>>>>>>> - that's about 1 MByte/s more than rt61pci.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to say, that the difference between rt61pci and ndiswrapper gets
>>>>>>> worse if the link quality is getting more badly. Or in other words:
>>>>>>> ndiswrapper handles bad connections better then rt61pci.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any idea to get rt61pci working as fast as ndiswrapper?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please run proper measurements first and post the results again.
>>>>
>>>> I did some measurements with netperf (TCP_STREAM):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ndiswrapper
>>>> ===========
>>>>
>>>> (OpenSuSE 11.2 2.6.31.13-21):
>>>> download
>>>> average min max
>>>> 20,88 19,02 22,19 MBit/s (6 runs)
>>>>
>>>> upstream
>>>> average min max
>>>> 21,46 18,84 22,26 MBits/s (7 runs)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OpenSuSE 11.3 (2.6.34-12-desktop)
>>>> download
>>>> average min max
>>>> 21,41 20,51 22,51 MBit/s (16 runs)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> upstream
>>>> average min max
>>>> error
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> rt61pci (patched - compat-wireless-2010-07-20)
>>>> ==============================================
>>>>
>>>> OpenSuSE 11.3 (2.6.34-12-desktop)
>>>> download
>>>> average min max
>>>> 15,54 12,4 17,19 MBit/s (25 runs)
>>>>
>>>> upstream
>>>> average min max
>>>> 13,54 12,1 14,04 MBits/s (7 runs)
>>>
>>> Hmm, ok that's quite a difference. Could you please mount debugfs
>>> (mount -t debugfs none /mnt), rerun the test and attach the contents
>>> of /mnt/ieee80211/phy0/stations/XX\:XX\:XX\:XX\:XX\:XX/rc_stats
>>> afterwards (XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX is the BSSID your connected to).
>>
>> Wel, I did some tests. I tried to get same conditions (what is not as
>> easy). I will show here some results, which seem to be typical to me.
>>
>>
>> downstream
>> ==========
>>
>> netperf -t TCP_SENDFILE -H client
>> TCP SENDFILE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to client port 0
>> AF_INET
>> Recv Send Send
>> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
>> Size Size Size Time Throughput
>> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>>
>> 87380 16384 16384 10.36 16.38
>>
>>
>> /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/stations/xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # cat rc_stats
>> rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
>> attempts
>> 1 0.7 76.2 100.0 0( 0) 11 11
>> 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 2
>> 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 32
>> 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 551 1574
>> 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 2096 6862
>> 18 11.3 69.9 66.6 0( 0) 18047 25158
>> t 24 13.4 62.9 100.0 0( 0) 29100 42883
>> T P 36 28.2 92.8 100.0 1( 1) 135030 175797
>> 48 4.4 11.3 0.0 0( 0) 361 3646
>> 54 0.8 1.8 0.0 0( 0) 55 1727
>>
>> Total packet count:: ideal 8917 lookaround 991
>>
>>
>>
>> netperf -t TCP_STREAM -H client
>> TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to client port 0
>> AF_INET
>> Recv Send Send
>> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
>> Size Size Size Time Throughput
>> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>>
>> 87380 16384 16384 10.39 16.57
>>
>>
>> /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/stations/xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # cat rc_stats
>> rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
>> attempts
>> 1 0.7 76.2 100.0 0( 0) 11 11
>> 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 2
>> 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 32
>> 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 551 1614
>> 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 2096 7047
>> t 18 12.8 79.2 80.0 0( 0) 18647 25949
>> 24 9.9 46.7 100.0 0( 0) 29439 44023
>> T P 36 29.0 95.6 100.0 1( 1) 141588 183495
>> 48 5.2 13.3 50.0 0( 0) 380 3781
>> 54 12.4 28.6 100.0 0( 0) 60 1797
>>
>> Total packet count:: ideal 6867 lookaround 763
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> upstream:
>> ========
>>
>> netperf -t TCP_MAERTS -H client
>> TCP MAERTS TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET client port 0 AF_INET
>> Recv Send Send
>> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
>> Size Size Size Time Throughput
>> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>>
>> 87380 16384 16384 10.56 13.19
>>
>>
>> /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/stations/xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # cat rc_stats
>> rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
>> attempts
>> 1 0.7 76.2 100.0 0( 0) 11 11
>> 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 2
>> 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 32
>> 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 551 1723
>> 12 6.8 61.8 100.0 0( 0) 2122 7635
>> P 18 16.0 98.6 100.0 0( 0) 21199 29108
>> t 24 16.6 78.2 100.0 0( 0) 44090 61942
>> T 36 29.1 95.7 100.0 1( 1) 183435 238929
>> 48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 446 4861
>> 54 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 67 2340
>>
>> Total packet count:: ideal 6696 lookaround 743
>>
>>
>>
>> netperf -t TCP_MAERTS -H client
>> TCP MAERTS TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to client port 0
>> AF_INET
>> Recv Send Send
>> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
>> Size Size Size Time Throughput
>> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>>
>> 87380 16384 16384 10.39 13.38
>>
>>
>> /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/stations/xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # cat rc_stats
>> rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
>> attempts
>> 1 0.7 76.2 100.0 0( 0) 11 11
>> 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 2
>> 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 32
>> 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 551 1534
>> 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 2096 6669
>> 18 15.5 95.4 100.0 0( 0) 17433 24342
>> tP 24 20.9 98.3 100.0 0( 0) 28782 41742
>> T 36 28.9 95.2 100.0 1( 1) 128587 168213
>> 48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 341 3510
>> 54 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 54 1658
>>
>> Total packet count:: ideal 2073 lookaround 230
>>
>>
>> It's remarkably, that the upstream is 3 Mbit/s lower than the downstream.
>>
>> Does this help you? Do you need some more data? Feel free to ask!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> rt61pci (original (unpatched) from OpenSuSE 11.3)
>>>> ==============================================
>>>>
>>>> download
>>>> 0,7 MBit/s
>>>>
>>>> upstream
>>>> error (interrupted system call)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you compare ndiswrapper with rt61pci patched, there is a difference
>>>> of about 6 MBits/s. The unpatched version can't be used at all.
>>>
>>> Ok, so either the txpower handling in rt61pci needs to be reviewed or your
>>> eeprom contents are crippled up. Not sure though ...
>>
>> Is there a way to check this? Can I do anything to test?
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Andreas
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists