Daniel Mack <daniel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 01:48 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Daniel Mack <daniel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:44 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>>> Daniel Mack <daniel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> It seems that once a network is successfully joined, the network >>> stability is fine. I haven't seen any starvation of streams lately, at >>> least not with the the patches in this series which I'm running since >>> a while. That is, until a disconnect/reconnect attempt is made, and at >>> this point, only management frames are involved. >> >> Ah, maybe originally you were seeing different issues with similar >> symptoms? But now you have fixed the other bugsand now the stuck >> transmitted management frame issue is left? Just guessing... > > Yeah, I wish I had a clearer picture on all this myself :( > > My patches definitely address some of the issues I have seen before, > also the fixes for potential race conditions are likely to have a > positive effect. But as you guessed yourself, I'm afraid that there's > a multitude of possible sources for bugs, so it's hard to tell. Sure, but things seem to going be forward in steady state. Thanks for your hard work! >> It would be great to have wcn36xx logging via tracing, just like ath10k >> and iwlwifi does. This way logging shouldn't slow down the system too >> much and with wpasupplicant's -T switch you can even get wpasupplicant's >> debug messages to the same log with proper timestamps! And almost >> forgot, you can also include mac80211 tracing logs as well: >> >> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/mac80211/tracing >> >> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath10k/debug#tracing >> >> See ath10k_dbg() and trace_ath10k_log_dbg() for ideas how to implement >> this, and you can also take a look at iwlwifi. Should be pretty easy. >> Patches more than welcome :) > > Okay, I'll see if I can find some time to look into this. > > The reason why I didn't focus the logging possibilities is that I > looked at the SMD messages that are flying around which result from > ieee80211 API calls into the driver, and I can't seem to find anything > that's wrong, especially not before the timeouts occur. Hence, I don't > actually expect any oddness on the ieee80211 layer. > > But I agree that in general, better logging is certainly helpful. Yeah, I'm not expecting tracing logs to solve this case either but maybe we could find some hints. And it just makes it so much easier to see what's really happening from tracing logs instead trying to guess from the bug description. "a tracing log is worth a thousand words" ;) But if you don't have time to implement tracing support to wcn36xx hopefully someone else has, all one needs is a DragonBoard 410c. A simple project for a student or someone who wants to contribute something to the kernel. >>> It seems it does, yes. Tests at night seem to take a bit more time to >>> make the effect happen. But then again, it could also be unrelated. I >>> can't be certain at this point. >> >> Can you describe what kind of radio environment you have, is it a busy >> office complex? How many APs around etc? > > I've tried different environments. In the office with 15-20 > laptops/mobiles in the room I see about 10-15 APs. At home, where I > did long-term nightly test, there's maybe a higher number of APs, but > fewer devices on the channel of the AP that I used for tests. > > I haven't used any more sophisticated environments like a sealed > reverberation chamber yet though. Ok, but please let me know if you see any differences caused by the environment. -- Kalle Valo
