The initial hacks I did to ath_rate_sample made it kind of do MCS rates OK, but it certainly wasn't great. To understand why then and what I've done now, it's best to go for a little trip down journey lane - the initial sample rate control algorithm by John Bicket. You can find a copy of the paper he wrote here - https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/jbicket-ms.pdf .
Now, sample didn't try to optimise maximum throughput. Instead, it attempts to optimise for minimum airtime to get the job done, and also attempted to minimise the time spent sampling rates that had a low probability of working. Note this was all done circa 2005 - at the time the other popular rate control methods tried to maintain the highest PHY rate that met some basic success rate (eg packet loss, bit error rate, etc, etc.) The initial implementation in FreeBSD also included multiple packet size bins - 250 and 1600 bytes - to allow rate selection based on packet length.
However, it made some assumptions about rates that don't quite hold in the 802.11n MCS world. Notably, it didn't take the PHY bitrate into account when comparing rates. It mostly assumed that going up in rate code - except between CCK and OFDM rates - meant it was faster. Now, this is true for 11b, 11g and 11a rates - again except when you transition between 11b and 11g rates - but this definitely doesn't hold true in the 802.11n MCS rate world. Yes, between MCS0 to MCS7 the PHY bitrate goes up, but then MCS8 is MCS0 times two streams, and MCS16 is MCS0 times three streams.
So my 2011/2012 just did the minimum hacks to choose /some/ MCS rates. It didn't take the length of aggregates into account; it just used the length of the first packet in the aggregate. Very suboptimal, but it got MCS rates going.
Now fast-forward to 2020. This works fine if you're close to the other end, but it's very terrible if you're at the fringes of acceptable behaviour. My access points at home are not well located and thus I'm reproducing this behaviour very often - so I decided to fix it.
First up - packet length. I had to do some work to figure out how much data was in the transmit queue for a given node and TID. (Think "QoS category.") The amount of data in the queue wasn't good enough - chances are we couldn't transmit all of it because of 802.11 state (block-ack window, management traffic, sleep state, etc.) So I needed a quick way to query the amount of traffic in the queue taking into account 802.11 state. That .. ended up being a walk of each packet in the software queue for that node/TID list until we hit our limit, but for now that'll do.
So then I can call ath_rate_lookup() to get a rate control schedule knowing how long a packet may be. But depending up on the rate it returns, the amount of data that may be transmitted could be less - there's a 4ms limit on 802.11n aggregates, so at lower MCS rates you end up only sending much smaller frames (like 3KB at the slowest rate.) So I needed a way to return how many bytes to form an aggregate for as well as the rate. That informed the A-MPDU formation routine how much data it could queue in the aggregate for the given rate.
I also stored that away to use when completing the transmit, just to line things up OK.
Ok, so now I'm able to make rate control decisions based on how much data needs to be sent. ath_rate_sample still only worked with 250 and 1600 byte packets. So, I extended that out to 65536 bytes in mostly-powers-of-two values. This worked pretty well right out of the box, but the rate control process was still making pretty trash decisions.
The next bit is all "statistics". The decisions that ath_rate_sample makes depend upon accurate estimations of how long packet transmissions took. I found that a lot of the logic was drastically over-compensating for failures by accounting a LOT more time for failures at each attempted rate, rather than only accounting how much time failed at that rate. Here's two examples:
- If a rate failed, then all the other rates would get failure accounted for the whole length of the transmission to that point. I changed it to only account for failures for that rate - so if three out of four rates failed, each failed rate would only get their individual time accounted to that rate, rather than everything.
- Short (RTS/CTS) and long (no-ACK) retries were being accounted incorrectly. If 10 short retries occured, then the maximum failed transmission for that rate can't be 10 times the "it happened" long retry style packet accounting. It's a short retry; the only thing that could differ is the rate that RTS/CTS is being exchanged at. Penalising rates because of bursts of short failures was incorrect and I changed that accounting.
By and large, I pretty accurately nailed making sure that failed transmit rates account for THEIR failures, not the failures of other rates in the schedule. It was super important for MCS rates because mis-accounting failures across the 24-odd rates you can choose in 3-stream transmit can have pretty disasterous effects on throughput - channel conditions change super frequently and you don't want to penalise things for far, far too long and it take a lot of subsequent successful samples just to try using that rate again.
So that was the statistics side done.
Next up - choices.
Choices was a bit less problematic to fix. My earlier hacks mostly just made it possible to choose MCS rates but it didn't really take into account their behaviour. When you're doing 11a/11g OFDM rates, you know that you go in lock-step from 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, 54MB, and if a rate starts failing the higher rate will likely also fail. However, MCS rates are different - the difference between MCS0 (1/2 BPSK, 1 stream) and MCS8 (1/2 BPSK, 2 streams) is only a couple dB of extra required signal strength. So given a rate, you want to sample at MCS rates around it but also ACROSS streams. So I mostly had to make sure that if I was at say MCS3, I'd also test MCS2 and MCS4, but I'd also test MCS10/11/12 (the 2-stream versions of MCS2/3/4) and maybe MCS18/19/20 for 3-stream. I also shouldn't really bother testing too high up the MCS chain if I'm at a lower MCS rate - there's no guarantee that MCS7 is going to work (5/6 QAM64 - fast but needs a pretty clean channel) if I'm doing ok at MCS2. So, I just went to make sure that the sampling logic wouldn't try all the MCS rates when operating at a given MCS rate. It works pretty well - sampling will try a couple MCS rates either side to see if the average transmit time for that rate is higher or lower, and then it'll bump it up or down to minimise said average transmit time.
However, the one gotcha - packet loss and A-MPDU.
ath_rate_sample was based on single frames, not aggregates. So the concept of average transmit time assumed that the data either got there or it didn't. But, with 802.11n A-MPDU aggregation we can have the higher rates succeed at transmitting SOMETHING - meaning that the average transmit time and long retry failure counts look great - but most of the frames in the A-MPDU are dropped. That means low throughput and more actual airtime being used.
When I did this initial work in 2011/2012 I noted this, so I kept an EWMA of the packet loss both of single frames and aggregates. I wouldn't choose higher rates whose EWMA was outside of a couple percent of the current best rate. It didn't matter how good it looked at the long retry view - if only 5% of sub-frames were ACKed, I needed a quick way to dismiss that. The EWMA logic worked pretty well there and only needed a bit of tweaking.
A few things stand out after testing:
- For shorter packets, it doesn't matter if it chooses the one, two or three stream rate; the bulk of the airtime is overhead and not data. Ie, the difference between MCS4, MCS12 and MCS20 is any extra training symbols for 2/3 stream rates and a few dB extra signal strength required. So, typically it will alternate between them as they all behave roughly the same.
- For longer packets, the bulk of the airtime starts becoming data, so it begins to choose rates that are obviously providing lower airtime and higher packet success EWMA. MCS12 is the choice for up to 4096 byte aggregates; the higher rates start rapidly dropping off in EWMA. This could be due to a variety of things, but importantly it's optimising things pretty well.