Hi Arend,
Am 22. September 2016 16:00:36 MESZ, schrieb Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>Op 22 sep. 2016 14:52 schreef "Jörg Krause"
><joerg.krause@embedded.rocks>:
>>
>> On Do, 2016-09-22 at 10:09 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>> > On 19-9-2016 8:36, Jörg Krause wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi Arend,
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 20:13 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On 14-9-2016 15:41, Jörg Krause wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hi,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 23:15 +0200, Jörg Krause wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Mi, 2016-08-24 at 20:35 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On 22-8-2016 15:37, Jörg Krause wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I am back from vacation and I'd like to do more
>> > > > > > > > investigations
>> > > > > > > > about
>> > > > > > > > this issue. Please see my comments below...
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Sun, 2016-08-07 at 13:41 +0200, Arend van Spriel
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On 06-08-16 16:12, Jörg Krause wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > A bit weird email format making it a bit hard to
>> > > > > > > > > determine
>> > > > > > > > > where
>> > > > > > > > > your
>> > > > > > > > > last reply starts...
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Fr, 2016-08-05 at 17:56 -0700, Franky Lin wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Jörg Krause
>> > > > > > > > > > <joerg.krause
>> > > > > > > > > > @emb
>> > > > > > > > > > ed
>> > > > > > > > > > ded.
>> > > > > > > > > > ro
>> > > > > > > > > > cks>
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Am 5. August 2016 23:01:10 MESZ, schrieb Arend Van
>> > > > > > > > > > Spriel
>> > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Op 5 aug. 2016 22:46 schreef "Jörg Krause"
>> > > > > > > > > > <joerg.krause@embedded.rocks>:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > I'm using a custom ARM board with an BCM43362 wifi
>> > > > > > > > > > chip
>> > > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Broadcom.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > The wifi chip is attached via SDIO to the
>controller
>> > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > clock of
>> > > > > > > > > > 48MHz. Linux kernel version is 4.7.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > When measuring the network bandwidth with iperf3 I
>> > > > > > > > > > get a
>> > > > > > > > > > bandwith of
>> > > > > > > > > > only around 5 Mbps. I found a similar thread at the
>> > > > > > > > > > Broadcom
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > community
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > [1] where the test was done with a M4 CPU +
>BCM43362
>> > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > > > average
>> > > > > > > > > > result of 3.3 Mbps.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Interestingly, a BCM43362 Wi-Fi Dev Kit [2] notes a
>> > > > > > > > > > TCP
>> > > > > > > > > > data
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > throughput
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > greater than 20 Mbps.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Why is the throughput I measured much lower? Note
>> > > > > > > > > > that I
>> > > > > > > > > > measured
>> > > > > > > > > > several times with almost no neighbor devices or
>> > > > > > > > > > networks.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > This is a test sample measured with iperf3:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > $ iperf3 -c 192.168.2.1 -i 1 -t 10
>> > > > > > > > > > Connecting to host 192.168.2.1, port 5201
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] local 192.168.2.155 port 36442 connected
>to
>> > > > > > > > > > 192.168.2.1
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > port
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > 5201
>> > > > > > > > > > [ ID]
>> > > > > > > > > > Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>Retr
>> > > > > > > > > > Cwn
>> > > > > > > > > > d
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 615 KBytes 5.04
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 56.6
>> > > > > > > > > > KBytes
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 622 KBytes 5.10
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 84.8
>> > > > > > > > > > KBytes
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 625 KBytes 5.12
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 113
>> > > > > > > > > > KBytes
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 571 KBytes 4.68
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 140
>> > > > > > > > > > KBytes
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 594 KBytes 4.87
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 167
>> > > > > > > > > > KBytes
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 628 KBytes 5.14
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 195
>> > > > > > > > > > KBytes
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 619 KBytes 5.07
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 202
>> > > > > > > > > > KBytes
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 608 KBytes 4.98
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 202
>> > > > > > > > > > KBytes
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 602 KBytes 4.93
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 202
>> > > > > > > > > > KBytes
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 537 KBytes 4.40
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 202
>> > > > > > > > > > KBytes
>> > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>-
>> > > > > > > > > > [ ID]
>> > > > > > > > > > Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>Retr
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 5.88 MBytes 4.93
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 sender
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 5.68 MBytes 4.76
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec receiver
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Not overly familiar with iperf3. Do these lines
>mean
>> > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > doing
>> > > > > > > > > > bidirectional test, ie. upstream and downstream at
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > same
>> > > > > > > > > > time.
>> > > > > > > > > > Another
>> > > > > > > > > > thing affecting tput could be power-save.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > No, iperf3 does not support bidrectional test.
>Power-
>> > > > > > > > > > save
>> > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > turned
>> > > > > > > > > > off.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > What does iw link say?
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > but I guess it starts here!
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > I compared the results with a Cubietruck I have:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > # iperf3 -s
>> > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > > > > > ----
>> > > > > > > > > > ----
>> > > > > > > > > > Server listening on 5201
>> > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > > > > > ----
>> > > > > > > > > > ----
>> > > > > > > > > > Accepted connection from 192.168.178.46, port 42906
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] local 192.168.178.38 port 5201 connected to
>> > > > > > > > > > 192.168.178.46
>> > > > > > > > > > port
>> > > > > > > > > > 42908
>> > > > > > > > > > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 2.29 MBytes 19.2
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 2.21 MBytes 18.5
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 2.17 MBytes 18.2
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 2.09 MBytes 17.6
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 2.20 MBytes 18.5
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 2.64 MBytes 22.1
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 2.67 MBytes 22.4
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 2.62 MBytes 22.0
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 2.35 MBytes 19.8
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 2.30 MBytes 19.3
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 10.00-10.03 sec 83.4 KBytes 23.5
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec
>> > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> > > > > > > > > > [ ID]
>> > > > > > > > > > Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>Retr
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 0.00-10.03 sec 23.9 MBytes 20.0
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec 0 sender
>> > > > > > > > > > [ 5] 0.00-10.03 sec 23.6 MBytes 19.8
>> > > > > > > > > > Mbits/sec receiver
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > # iw dev wlan0 link
>> > > > > > > > > > Connected to xx:xx:xx:xx:xx (on wlan0)
>> > > > > > > > > > SSID: xxx
>> > > > > > > > > > freq: 2437
>> > > > > > > > > > tx bitrate: 65.0 MBit/s
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > bss flags: short-preamble short-slot-
>> > > > > > > > > > time
>> > > > > > > > > > dtim period: 1
>> > > > > > > > > > beacon int: 100
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Too bad RSSI is not in the output above. That may be
>> > > > > > > > > due to
>> > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > regression
>> > > > > > > > > in our driver which has been fixed by commit
>> > > > > > > > > 94abd778a7bb
>> > > > > > > > > ("brcmfmac:
>> > > > > > > > > add fallback for devices that do not report per-chain
>> > > > > > > > > values").
>> > > > > > > > > However,
>> > > > > > > > > the tx bitrate seems within the same range as the
>other
>> > > > > > > > > platform.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > The Cubietruck works also with the brcmfmac driver.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > May it depend on the NVRAM file?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Not sure. Can you tell me a bit more about the custom
>> > > > > > > > > ARM
>> > > > > > > > > board.
>> > > > > > > > > Does
>> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > use the same wifi module as Cubietruck, ie. the AMPAK
>> > > > > > > > > AP6210?
>> > > > > > > > > If
>> > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > > make a wireshark sniff we can check the actual
>bitrate
>> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > medium
>> > > > > > > > > density in terms of packets. Another thing to look at
>> > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > SDIO
>> > > > > > > > > host
>> > > > > > > > > controller. In brcmf_sdiod_sgtable_alloc() some key
>> > > > > > > > > values
>> > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > used
>> > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > the host controller. It only logs the number of
>entries
>> > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > scatter-gather table, but could you add the other
>> > > > > > > > > values in
>> > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > function that are used to determine the number of
>> > > > > > > > > entries.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > My board uses the BCM43362 chip solely (no Bluetooth)
>> > > > > > > > attached to
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > SDIO interface of a NXP i.MX28 processor.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I added some additional printk() to
>> > > > > > > > brcmf_sdiod_sgtable_alloc().
>> > > > > > > > These
>> > > > > > > > are the values printed after modprobe brcmfmac:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > [ 8.926657] sg_support=1
>> > > > > > > > [ 8.929440] max_blocks=511
>> > > > > > > > [ 8.932213] max_request_size=261632
>> > > > > > > > [ 8.935741] max_segment_count=52
>> > > > > > > > [ 8.939005] max_segment_size=65280
>> > > > > > > > [ 8.946095] nents=35
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks. That looks good.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Additionally I attached a xz compresses wireshark sniff
>> > > > > > > > while
>> > > > > > > > running
>> > > > > > > > iper3 between the BCM43362 running as in AP mode with
>> > > > > > > > iperf3
>> > > > > > > > as a
>> > > > > > > > server and a PC in station mode running iperf3 as a
>> > > > > > > > client.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Looking at the sniff it seems you captured on the
>ethernet
>> > > > > > > side.
>> > > > > > > That
>> > > > > > > does not give me any 802.11 specific info. Can you make a
>> > > > > > > wireless
>> > > > > > > capture preferably without encryption.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > You,re right! Sorry for this mistake. I did a re-capture on
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > wireless side now.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Anything new about this? Anything I can do to help?
>> > > >
>> > > > I missed your previous email. Was already wondering whether to
>> > > > ping
>> > > > you.
>> > > > Digging around in my email folders I found it so will take a
>look
>> > > > at
>> > > > it.
>> > >
>> > > Did you had some time to look at this?
>> >
>> > Ehm. I still only see TCP stuff. To capture 802.11 management
>frames
>> > you
>> > need preferably a dedicated device using monitor mode [1].
>>
>> Stupid me! Now I used a monitor interface on a desktop to monitor the
>> traffic between the BCM43362 operating in soft-AP mode and a notebook
>> operating in managed mode.
>>
>> The BCM43362 runs the iperf server, the notebook the iperf client.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Week almost through so might next week.
Did you had some time to look at this?
Best regards
Jörg Krause
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
