[rt2x00-users] [PATCH 9/9] rt2x00: Modify rt2x00queue_remove_l2pad to make skb->data two-byte alignment

[Helmut Schaa]

Am Mittwoch 17 November 2010 schrieb RA-Jay Hung:
> > > When inserting the l2pad we're moving the header and thus reduce headroom.
> > > This patch modifies the bahavior during l2pad removal to not move the header
> > > back into its old position but instead moves the payload. Thus the skb keeps
> > > the reduced headroom. If this skb gets requeued into rt2x00 (which can happen
> > > when the frame wasn't acked and the according STA is known to e in powersave
> > > mode) the header and payload get aligned again further reducing headroom which
> > > results in a too small headroom for the TXWI and thus a skb_under_panic.
> >
> > Hmm, John merged that patch already. However, I would prefer if it would get
> > reverted due to the occasional panics in AP mode.
> >
> > Jay, I didn't notice any performance degradation on MIPS, on which architecture
> > did you test?
> 
> My test environment as below
> Architecture is AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core, and use rt3070 to test throughput.
> Before not patch code, the throughput just only 5, 6M, but after patch,
> throughput can achieve about 40M on open air. How about your test?

I tried with rt2800pci on MIPS32 in AP mode (STA <- eth -> AP <- wifi -> STA2).
An UDP iperf stream (STA -> STA2) was able to achieve up to 90Mbps while a TCP
stream maxed out at around 70Mbps (before and after this patch). STA2 is an
Intel HT20 11n client.

Hmm, you've been testing on USB. Maybe that makes a difference?

Nevertheless, such a performance drop on such a fast machine is likely caused
by something different, no? Did you have any warnings in dmesg (due to
watchdog timeouts for example)? Maybe the rate control algorithm made a wrong
decision and used a low tx rate?

> > Jay, Ivo, any objections against reverting this one?
>
> I agree to revert this one because this will cause tool small headroom of your mention.
> We need to supply another patch when resolve all issue. Thanks.

John, should I send a follow-up (with a nice description why it this is needed)
or are you simply reverting this one?

Thanks,
Helmut