On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 January 2012 14:38, Helmut Schaa <helmut.sc...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.li...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> I will test more thoroughly but I noticed about 0.7 MB/s speed drop >>> comparing with those spinlocks commented out. >> >> Hmm, ok, might as well just be a wifi interference/noise issue? Maybe just >> try on eth only with iperf or something similar? With a dedicated peer and >> a simple crossover cable maybe. > > I don't think it's interference/noise issue as I've tried several > times with and without spinlocks before writing to the list. > The interesting part was that on eth only (bridged or routed) the > speed was the same (...I think so, I'm not sure now) with and without > spinlocks - 11.2 MB/s.
Maybe because the CPU wasn't exhausted with "only" ethernet throughput while adding bridge + wifi will bring the CPU further to its limits and ksoftirqd kicks in ... And you really just removed the spin_lock in the housekeeping tasklet and nothing else? So, you haven't reverted the whole patch, right? > Well, ok, I'll retest everything again (a bit later) and let you know > the results. Ok, thanks. Helmut _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
