lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: RTL8723BE performance regression
Date
On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 14:49 -0700, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 05:44 +0000, Pkshih wrote:
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: João Paulo Rechi Vita [mailto:jprvita@gmail.com]
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 6:41 AM
> >> > To: Larry Finger
> >> > Cc: Steve deRosier; 莊彥宣; Pkshih; Birming Chiu; Shaofu; Steven Ting; Chaoming_Li; Kalle Valo;
> >> > linux-wireless; Network Development; LKML; Daniel Drake; João Paulo Rechi Vita; linux@endless
> m.c
> >> om
> >> > Subject: Re: RTL8723BE performance regression
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> wrote:
> >> > > On 04/03/2018 09:37 PM, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> (...)
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> As the antenna selection code changes affected your first bisection, do
> >> > >>> you
> >> > >>> have one of those HP laptops with only one antenna and the incorrect
> >> > >>> coding
> >> > >>> in the FUSE?
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes, that is why I've been passing ant_sel=1 during my tests -- this
> >> > >> was needed to achieve a good performance in the past, before this
> >> > >> regression. I've also opened the laptop chassis and confirmed the
> >> > >> antenna cable is plugged to the connector labeled with "1" on the
> >> > >> card.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> If so, please make sure that you still have the same signal
> >> > >>> strength for good and bad cases. I have tried to keep the driver and the
> >> > >>> btcoex code in sync, but there may be some combinations of antenna
> >> > >>> configuration and FUSE contents that cause the code to fail.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> What is the recommended way to monitor the signal strength?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > The btcoex code is developed for multiple platforms by a different group
> >> > > than the Linux driver. I think they made a change that caused ant_sel to
> >> > > switch from 1 to 2. At least numerous comments at
> >> > > github.com/lwfinger/rtlwifi_new claimed they needed to make that change.
> >> > >
> >> > > Mhy recommended method is to verify the wifi device name with "iw dev". Then
> >> > > using that device
> >> > >
> >> > > sudo iw dev <dev_name> scan | egrep "SSID|signal"
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I have confirmed that the performance regression is indeed tied to
> >> > signal strength: on the good cases signal was between -16 and -8 dBm,
> >> > whereas in bad cases signal was always between -50 to - 40 dBm. I've
> >> > also switched to testing bandwidth in controlled LAN environment using
> >> > iperf3, as suggested by Steve deRosier, with the DUT being the only
> >> > machine connected to the 2.4 GHz radio and the machine running the
> >> > iperf3 server connected via ethernet.
> >> >
> >>
> >> We have new experimental results in commit af8a41cccf8f46 ("rtlwifi: cleanup
> >> 8723be ant_sel definition"). You can use the above commit and do the same
> >> experiments (with ant_sel=0, 1 and 2) in your side, and then share your results.
> >> Since performance is tied to signal strength, you can only share signal strength.
> >>
> >
> > Please pay attention to cold reboot once ant_sel is changed.
> >

> I've tested the commit mentioned above and it fixes the problem on top
> of v4.16 (in addition to the latest wireless-drivers-next also been
> fixed as it already contains such commit). On v4.15, we also need the
> following commits before "af8a41cccf8f rtlwifi: cleanup 8723be ant_sel
> definition" to have a good performance again:

>   874e837d67d0 rtlwifi: fill FW version and subversion
>   a44709bba70f rtlwifi: btcoex: Add power_on_setting routine
>   40d9dd4f1c5d rtlwifi: btcoex: Remove global variables from btcoex

v4.15 isn't longterm version and had been EOL.


> Surprisingly, it seems forcing ant_sel=1 is not needed anymore on
> these machines, as the shown by the numbers bellow (ant_sel=0 means
> that actually no parameter was passed to the module). I have powered
> off the machine and done a cold boot for every test. It seems
> something have changed in the antenna auto-selection code since v4.11,
> the latest point where I could confirm we definitely need to force
> ant_sel=1. I've been trying to understand what causes this difference,
> but haven't made progress on that so far, so any suggestions are
> appreciated (we are trying to decide if we can confidently drop the
> downstream DMI quirks for these specific machines).

I think your rtl8723be module programed correct efuse content, so it
works properly with ant_sel=0, and quirk isn't required for your
machine.

>   w-d-n ant_sel=0: -14.00 dBm,  69.5 Mbps -> good
>   w-d-n ant_sel=1: -10.00 dBm,  41.1 Mbps -> good
>   w-d-n ant_sel=2: -44.00 dBm,   607 kbps -> bad

>   v4.16 ant_sel=0: -12.00 dBm,  63.0 Mbps -> good
>   v4.16 ant_sel=1: - 8.00 dBm,  69.0 Mbps -> good
>   v4.16 ant_sel=2: -50.00 dBm,   224 kbps -> bad

>   v4.15 ant_sel=0: - 8.00 dBm,  33.0 Mbps -> good
>   v4.15 ant_sel=1: -10.00 dBm,  38.1 Mbps -> good
>   v4.15 ant_sel=2: -48.00 dBm,   206 kbps -> bad


With your results, the efuse content is programmed as one or two antenna
on AUX path.

Regards,
PK

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-08 10:38    [W:0.103 / U:2.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site