From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67E013B2A4 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:32:10 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1592317930; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dh0xbEeJpmd6dfv9Pa2jpaooTbif5v7zG9PcGc2t2Ic=; b=KZZLdJLlIbJleACWw8kDJttkzWOOG+Mpqb9nE22UFt3cbkuwgcTP7mNtxi6/7X+mjc1Ugx 1D1Nm5NnqvAJ/fJvQA5nX7pyMXws0ypsLNzV2B542LFuNVIZZ+DcNkW5eg72hbf/BlT6GU OzgLZ5rxRt4wk964if3llTT+UZDEAnQ= Received: from mail-wr1-f71.google.com (mail-wr1-f71.google.com [209.85.221.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-463-0X2MWvIJO2OL-bfXAYZVgg-1; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:32:08 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 0X2MWvIJO2OL-bfXAYZVgg-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f71.google.com with SMTP id x15so6967688wru.21 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:32:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=dh0xbEeJpmd6dfv9Pa2jpaooTbif5v7zG9PcGc2t2Ic=; b=htrqxwpGjwUqEXO2E6ipWeAco6p1cPRpGBqWhiky1suYB7MswHul7hpGIp0Qqxs3om JcJyk4XKXxNYzsGviUW/DvCAGv8g60ADZJoC7feY7YdhrfDgF9za6qMjchWSx+WLAM/D WJxLU+r32gu9Q6/s/je4Y4SoYqcVA2566vM8fJ8U+FXTUSu7DKuyVmqnhGBGtpT2JX3P EdNu1f45t54r5EpHYwSrrS4dqpUnyO5YCgVwIsxqKR/J/ASxElP10XD4Jjx1/mFfodJG P8y7bgCZ150lRnpwR+NBIMlZfsTCVlkK3Cpru6p5+BpW/zc0ni/bCtnQcakoCcZf7aPZ 0jrA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533GyEWj2l2sB8cW4P+382xok7uQcgf9XIw5Etcyewj5yY1H+rfa bUlFRV05r09SEsJ1lbQep8KKY/YCAxhsrRTY8dRoECaLI7Vu33NTiEU9iBTCy0f02J4aTuW7tAi sqpyopNPiAlDjo01A1oLwvpI10RzyLWGtXYg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:7:: with SMTP id h7mr3622761wrx.55.1592317926906; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:32:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzgZS9luNzvWxDlpWG49nPiX1SgB1OCnsxUzvEp+lC2WayveccSdG7vD7yQwtJEXToGTRc9LQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:7:: with SMTP id h7mr3622739wrx.55.1592317926718; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk ([45.145.92.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l2sm28861401wru.58.2020.06.16.07.32.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:32:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9483F181513; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:32:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Michael Yartys Cc: "make-wifi-fast\@lists.bufferbloat.net" In-Reply-To: References: <87sgevz1iu.fsf@toke.dk> <709555FC-4203-486B-8B40-86FAD9F0294C@gmx.de> <87lfknz080.fsf@toke.dk> <87a713yxat.fsf@toke.dk> X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:32:05 +0200 Message-ID: <877dw7ytcq.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Higher latency on upload under poor signal conditions X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:32:10 -0000 >> > Is this what I would be looking for (I only included the relevant part of the output)? >> > $ iw wlp18s0 station dump >> > tx packets: 742091 >> > tx retries: 417 >> > This is the output after running an upload test and getting pretty >> > much the same results. I disabled and re-enabled the wireless NIC >> > before the test since that seems to reset the stats. It doesn't really >> > look like the retry rate is high, but I don't really know what's >> > considered high in the first place. >> >> That does not seem overly high, no. I guess 80ms could just be queueing >> delay, either in the firmware, or because your driver is not using >> TXQs... > > It seems like I also have TXQs: > > $ iw phy | grep TXQ > * [ TXQS ]: FQ-CoDel-enabled intermediate TXQs > > I guess that it's probably in the firmware then. IIRC I don't see this > behaviour when I have a good connection, but I'll have to perform a > test to be sure. Well, it may be that the firmware is doing a lot of retransmits and not telling the OS. Or it may simply be that the poor connection ends up dropping the effective rate so the buffering becomes more noticeable. -Toke