> -----Original Message----- > From: ath10k <ath10k-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Toke > Høiland-Jørgensen > Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:44 PM > To: Wen Gong <wgong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ath10k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ath10k: Set sk_pacing_shift to 6 for 11AC WiFi > chips > > Wen Gong <wgong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Upstream kernel has an interface to help adjust sk_pacing_shift to > > help improve TCP UL throughput. > > The sk_pacing_shift is 8 in mac80211, this is based on test with 11N > > WiFi chips with ath9k. For QCA6174/QCA9377 PCI 11AC chips, the 11AC > > VHT80 TCP UL throughput testing result shows 6 is the optimal. > > Overwrite the sk_pacing_shift to 6 in ath10k driver for QCA6174/9377 PCI. > > > > Tested with QCA6174 PCI with firmware > > WLAN.RM.4.4.1-00109-QCARMSWPZ-1, but this will also affect QCA9377 > PCI. > > It's not a regression with new firmware releases. > > > > There have 2 test result of different settings: > > > > ARM CPU based device with QCA6174A PCI with different > > sk_pacing_shift: > > > > sk_pacing_shift throughput(Mbps) CPU utilization > > 6 500(-P5) ~75% idle, Focus on CPU1: ~14%idle > > 7 454(-P5) ~80% idle, Focus on CPU1: ~4%idle > > 8 288 ~90% idle, Focus on CPU1: ~35%idle > > 9 ~200 ~92% idle, Focus on CPU1: ~50%idle > > > > 5G TCP UL VTH80 on X86 platform with QCA6174A PCI with > > sk_packing_shift set to 6: > > > > tcp_limit_output_bytes throughput(Mbps) > > default(262144)+1 Stream 336 > > default(262144)+2 Streams 558 > > default(262144)+3 Streams 584 > > default(262144)+4 Streams 602 > > default(262144)+5 Streams 598 > > changed(2621440)+1 Stream 598 > > changed(2621440)+2 Streams 601 > > You still haven't provided any latency numbers for these tests, which makes > it impossible to verify that setting sk_pacing_shift to 6 is the right tradeoff. > > As I said before, from your numbers I suspect the right setting is actually 7, > which would be 10-20ms less latency under load; way more important than > ~50 Mbps... > Hi Toke, Could you give the command line for the latency test? https://flent.org/intro.html#quick-start I used the command but test failed: flent tcp_download -p 1 -l 60 -H 192.168.1.5 -t text-to-be-included-in-plot -o file1.png error loading plotter: unable to find plot configuration "1" > -Toke > > _______________________________________________ > ath10k mailing list > ath10k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
