netperf BW tests with hostap and wlan-ng on WL200

JuanJo Ciarlante jjo-hostap at mendoza.gov.ar
Wed Feb 26 12:57:19 EST 2003


On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 11:45:31AM -0300, JuanJo Ciarlante wrote:
[standard disclaimer about not replying to self ... blablah]

> > [...]
> > It was supposed to not be needed anymore with the current scheme of
> > using BAP (only one BAP is used).
> 
> I do confirm that bringing back cli/sti (actually a local 
> spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore pair) had made resets  dissappear
> during a TX stress test (netperf -l99 ...); although BW have increased, 
> it's still lower than wlanng.
> 
> > If it is still needed, there is
> > something wrong with higher level locking. And yes, there probably is..
> 
> high level or low level ?
> It seems to me that IRQ handling is "breaking" wait_offset() tight loop under
> setup_bap() ...
> 
> > I have this in my todo list for testing, but I have been quite occupied
> > with other projects lately so this has been delayed.
> 
> I can do further debugging/testing, this low powered CPU + Prism2 seems to
> be a good combo to trigger these behaviour, just let me know.

Even further "nice" testbeds ... we have (http://www.mendoza-wireless.net.ar/) 
   #1  low end CPUs (P166, P230)
   #2  WL200 (pci/pcmcia) Prism2
   #3  several km (from ~5km to ~12km), low signal, noisy links

Tonight (back home) I'll test hostap without own retry processing (a
major difference I see with wlanng), something that #1+#3 could make relevant.

BTW ... Is possible to build&use hostap without setting up for
    HFA384X_TX_CTRL_TX_EX events (by just commenting out that bit) ?

Regards
-- 
--Juanjo  

#  Juan Jose Ciarlante (JuanJo PGP) jjo ;at; mendoza.gov.ar              #
#  Key fingerprint = 76 60 A5 76 FD D2 53 E3  50 C7 90 20 22 8C F1 2D    #



More information about the HostAP mailing list