Search Linux Wireless

ath10k/QCA6174 performance hit with multicast frame registration

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

A patch I authored appears to have introduced a performance hit with ath10k/QCA6174 when userspace registers for frames and sets the multicast RX flag:

commit 63b896629353157e8ca77cabdfab340b5c69ca59
Author: James Prestwood <prestwoj@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Tue Dec 5 17:15:36 2023 +0200

    wifi: ath10k: add support to allow broadcast action frame RX

First off, the performance issues appear generally as packet loss. It only seems to happen when we get 10-15 or more clients all on the same channel in the same vicinity (all registering for multicast frames). This is somewhat uncommon even in our uses-cases which is why it took a while to notice any of this behavior. Based on some PCAPs taken about 50-75% of the air traffic was retransmissions, many were ADDBA/Block ACK related. Reverting this patch OR forcing the supplicant to not register for multicast frames (thereby bypassing the configure_filter logic in the driver) resolved the issues entirely.

From the supplicant side I am currently modifying IWD to only register for these multicast frames when it needs them (i.e. when DPP starts). Looking at wpa_supplicant it already does this afaict. So I think broadly, the impact of this is relatively low and should only effect users of IWD, running QCA6174's, in high client load environments. And an IWD fix/workaround is in progress which would then only effect those actively using DPP.

From the kernel side I would obviously like to fix this rather than revert, but I'm hoping to get some guidance on what might be causing this. Is the driver getting bombarded with multicast frames causing drops? Is there some lower level filter I need to configure (like in the firmware)? When I wrote this patch I was following what ath9k did as its the only other driver (besides hwsim) that actually supports this. This is making me question if ath9k also has this problem, but it was just never noticed?

Jouni, you implemented the ath9k support, was anything like this noticed in testing? Based on what we saw this last week its unlikely since it requires so many clients, but I figured I'd ask.

Thanks,

James





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Network]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Wireless Regulations]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux