(1) Goals of this GSoC project @ Freifunk
This project started with the major goal to make TPC per packet and per MRR possible in the Linux kernel. To achieve this we had several subgoals:
- Implementation of new mac80211 status and control structures to annotate and account TX-power settings per packet
- propose the changes to the Linux kernel to get it upstream
- enable the TX-power per packet support in Mediatek mt76 driver and Atheros ath9k driver (TPC per MRR for ath9k)
- validate the TPC per packet / per MRR feature
Overall seen, these goals have been reached up to now as I will explain in the following. The implementation of a TPC algorithm und subsequent performance measurements to investigate the impact of TPC in WiFi networks were not in the scope of this project. But the project is the foundation for this and makes further development possible.
To find out more about the project and its motivation, please see my first post here.
(2) What has been implemented
Here a small conclusion of which parts I have covered in my project:
- TX-power annotation in mac80211 layer
- TPC driver support
- TPC support in Atheros ath9k driver
- TPC support in Mediatek mt76 driver (mt7615 only so far)
- TPC support in hwsim (WIP, still has some bugs)
- static TX-power per station via debugfs
- more work in ongoing research project ‘SupraCoNeX’
Instead of explaining everything again, I refer to the corresponding parts of my midterm post here. There I already explained some of my work in more detail. Best way to see the modifications in detail is to look at the single patches and commits referred in section (3).
There are some changes compared to the midterm status that I will explain here.
(a) TX-power annotation in mac80211
To annotate and account TX-power, some changes to the structures of mac80211 were necessary as already shown in my last post. To summarize this, the changes include:
- add new members in
- provide an abstract definition for different TX-power levels via
- add additional hardware flags for TPC support
- other required minor changes
I covered those in detail in the last post and they haven’t been changed that much since the midterm post. Only the data type of the TX-power annotation in
struct ieee80211_tx_info.control and
struct ieee80211_sta_rates was changed. Before, it was an 8-bit unsigned integer which is usually sufficient for power levels supported by wifi chipsets.
The data type is now a 16-bit signed integer. Power levels still can only be defined with positive indices, but negative values in the fields can be used to pass an ‘invalid’ or ‘unset’ power level. This solves the problem that otherwise the corresponding TX-power controller would always need to deliver a valid power level. By setting a negative value, the driver should determine a power level on its own. For example in ath9k, this means the default
MAX_RATE_POWER is used. This is similar to the annotation of a TX-rate where usually an 8-bit signed integer is used and negative values also mean ‘invalid/unused’ rate. The size of the type needs to be 16-bit because the 8-bit would interfere with the declaration of TX-power ranges. While an u8 can address power level indices up to 255, the s8 ends at 127. Thus, 16-bit is needed.
Not to forget, prior to the beginning of GSoC I already extended and modified the TX status path in mac80211 accounting the TX-power. For details see the first two commits in the list in section (3).
(b) TPC support in wireless drivers
The support in wireless driver usually covers two code paths: control path and status path. The changes in the control path were basically easy to implement. There are less limitations and often already existing structures to pass additional information with an SKB for transmission. All three driver implementations (ath9k, mt76, hwsim) are therefore just passing the TX-power through the control path and finally write it to the TX descriptor for each packet. In case if mt76 there were no such structures for additional information, but because mt7615 only supports TPC per packet, the single member in the
ieee80211_tx_info.control could be used.
However, the status path was more difficult, especially in mt76. To increase performance and have less to execute in the hot path, the status path is designed asynchronously. In detail, the SKB is usually added to a queue after transmission and will asynchronously dequeued and finally processed by a tasklet or a worker, running on another thread or core. These queues are SKB-only queues which means that every information that needs to be passed must be somehow contained or referenced in the SKB. There are fields in
ieee80211_tx_info which can be used for this purpose, in particular
driver_data. These fields are then used in ath9k and mt76 to pass additional status information per packet.
The driver implementation for ath9k has been optimized a bit since the last blogpost and the mt7615 implementation was added also. But they are both by far not optimal and just intended as a first proof-of-concept, to be further developed and optimized as part of what is left to do.
(c) static TX-power per station
One way to set a fixed TX-power per sta, and also the first way that was implemented (mostly for initial tests), is via minstrel_ht rate control. An additional debugfs file is created for each station when the rate control is initiated. By writing to this file, the written TX-power index is saved by minstrel_ht and applied to each packet for which the rate control is called. In contrast to the implementation in my midterm post, where the fixed TX-power was only set per interface, it was now changed to be per station.
Although this variant was pretty easy to implement, it has some downsides. First, when the rate control is not called for a packet, the fixed TX-power has no effect. This is currently the case for non-data frames for which the rate control is not called in mac80211. Second, when a WiFi device supports TPC, but does not use a rate control algorithm in mac80211, the fixed value also has no effect. And also regarding the new feature, which I mention in section (4), this first variant is rather limited.
Thus, a second variant was implemented which just uses the mac80211 layer and the driver. The per-sta structure
ieee80211_sta already has a sub-structure which describes the characteristics of a link and already has some sort of TX-power annotation (see
struct ieee80211_sta_txpwr), but is not used by most drivers. To use this for static TX-power per station, the setting will be included in the TX control path of the covered drivers and a debugfs entry is added per station. This entry is independent from rate control but also recognized in the drivers.
(d) validation and the enclosing research project
The enclosing research project for my project is called SupraCoNeX and tries to make WiFi faster. This also includes the TX-power control. In the project, an API in minstrel for both rate and TX-power and userspace implementations of rate and TX-power control algorithms are developed. Those will use my work as a foundation. More details and resources will be linked below when the research project and its outcomes will be published.
As the project did not cover to implement a TPC algorithm and this would be enough work for another project, basic validation and testing of TPC was performed with the implementations. Similar to the procedure described in my midterm post, the TX-power was statically set for each tested driver to be applied per packet. By changing the TX-power and observing the RSSI measured with a monitor interface, it was validated that the power can be adjusted appropriately, is used for packet transmission, is correctly reported in the tx status and has an impact on throughput and signal strength.
(3) Where to find my work
This section will be updated regularly to include all discussions and commits in relation to the Linux kernel so the further development can be easily tracked.
All the patches and changes against Linux kernel / OpenWrt tree I have developed are currently located in a Github repository: https://github.com/jonasjelonek/GSoC22-TX-power-control
As soon as the changes are accepted in the ongoing or yet to be started discussions on Linux kernel mailing list, the patches will be removed and instead links to the appropriate commits will be added here.
Commits in Linux kernel:
As soon as results of the mentioned research project are published, they will be linked here too. My work is based on this project and vice versa.
(4) What is left to do and beyond
The scope of the GSoC project has been fulfilled but the overall TPC work is not finished yet. There is still some imminent work to be done, mostly optimizations and extensions:
- include advice and improvements from LKML discussions in implementation
- improve and extend the proof-of-concept TPC support implementations in drivers
- include TPC for mt7603 and ath5k drivers
- do more tests and validations
Some of these points will be done by me in the following weeks, other parts may be art of other people’s work or other projects. Part of the ongoing research project is will be the TPC algorithm and the tests associated with this, based on the driver implementations.
As the kernel always changes and support for different technologies is introduced over time, the TPC implementation may be adjusted over time. For example, work has begun in the Linux kernel wireless subsystem to support a feature which will be introduced by WiFi 7, called Multi-Link Operation (MLO). Basically, this feature allows access point (AP) and station (STA) to use multiple frequency bands (2.4GHz, 5GHz, 6GHz) in parallel for data transmission to increase performance. Possibly, my work can be extended to support MLO. Currently, both rate control (RC) and TPC only support a single link per STA respectively are not aware of multiple links.
With this project, the foundation for further TPC development in the Linux kernel was laid by providing the required structures and extensions to annotate and account TX-power in both TX control and status path. Some things are still left to do for me and I am looking forward to continuing with my work in this project. With the work I have done ’til now, other developers can also start to work in this direction and do research or develop on top of this.
GSoC’22 was a great experience but also hard work. I clearly do not regret having done this project and I am planning to continue to develop and research in this field and to further contribute to open-source projects of any kind, e.g., the Linux kernel. During the project time I have learned so much about the structure of the Linux kernel and how it works and most importantly how development for and contribution to it are managed with the Git, maintainers and LKML.
My mentor Thomas helped me a lot regarding problems and implementation review and advice. It was great to work with him and I am looking forward to working with him again in the future.
If you got interested in my project and want to know more, have questions or even suggestions for improvements, etc., please contact me by email: email@example.com or visit me on Github or LinkedIn.
I hope you liked it!