On Monday 25 May 2009, Alejandro Riveira Fernández wrote: > El lun, 25-05-2009 a las 13:23 +0200, Ivo van Doorn escribió: > > On Monday 25 May 2009, Alejandro Riveira Fernández wrote: > > > I reported it previously but i'm resending it as a regresion > > > > > > More info on the bugzilla > > > > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13362 > > > > > > I bisected it in the estable tree (it regresses too) and the revert > > > helps there but reverting the upstream commit in mainline does not help > > > to fix it completely... > > > > Bug 9273 - rt2500pci: low TCP throughput > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9273 > > > > Bug 443203 - Fedora rawhide + ralink = slow bit rate > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443203 > > > > [Hardy][Intrepid] Low bandwidth with rt2400 / rt2500 drivers > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/190515 > > > > I can't call this a regression, dozens people have reported the problems > > ranging from kernels 2.6.25 to 2.6.29. Perhaps in your case it worked slightly > > better once, but that was not the case for all other users. > > > > Have you tried the "iwconfig wlan0 rate54M" workaround? > > Yep during various releases I used that workaround but once I > switched to minstrel rate choosing alg (that's the neme isn't it) the > problem gone away and i got allways a good connection for several > releases and many kernels tried; till this patch. If I revert this patch > the problem goes away completly and reliably (i'm using 2.6.29.4 with > the patch reveted) so something has clearly regressed for me. > > You can see my coments ( ariveira ) on rt2x00 forums regarding the > issues you mention (low speed that gets fixed forcing the rate) in the > long thread about rt2500pci low rate[1]. > > Checking the message i see that it was 2.6.27 when i began using > minstrel and got a rock solid connection in 2.6.27.x, 2.6.28.x and > 2.6.29 minus 64e1b00c974ddeae6a60ebb02e1c487371905cea > > The problem is not that I get a low rate on connect (1Mbit) that i can > easily fix with iwconfig the problem is that with 54M (and 48M and the > like) connections I get a bumpy and low speed connection. > > So I honesty think it is not the same issue and I hope you read this as > an interesting data point and not just as a duplicate. > > Would the output of this script[2] for 2.6.29.4 with and without the > revert help you ? Yes please try it. but for 2.6.29 you probably need attached script instead. I am not sure if it would produce something useful, because I think Johannes assertion is right. With his patch the correct bitmask is send to the driver and the driver actually needs _that_ bitmask without any editing (rather then the incorrect one which was send before that patch). Ivo
Attachment:
rt2x00_regdump.sh
Description: application/shellscript
