State of the "mass" tests
holger at freyther.de
Sat Jul 7 21:42:41 UTC 2018
> On 26. Jun 2018, at 15:27, Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> wrote:
>> In that specific case only 9/20 MS completed an Update Location within 60s. Maybe I am missing a state transition in the LUA code and don't report the success. I will need to understand this better.
> That's of course odd. But it should be rather easy to investigate if
> looking at an Abis or A-interface trace? I think we recently had an
> issue that we'd only use SDCCH for LU and never fall back to "bigger"
> channels like TCH. Maybe that's limiting your LU rate, particularly if
> you only have a SDCCH/4?
Sure. But that is what we want to test as well? Immediate Assignment
Rejects and back-off handling. What happens is more funny though. While
looking at the RSL trace I noticed that in "CHANNEL REQUIRED" the T1,
T2, T3 of consecutive requests were the same.
All MS started at the _same_ second will pick the same random numbers.
These are used for the RACH request and also the back-off handling. The
obvious change is to go from random() to osmo_get_rand_id and indeed
things are a lot better. This makes a big difference but has uncovered
another issue. We have a big spread between when the LU starts and it
One example is the Immediate Assignment Reject handling. IIRC Jacob
implemented grouping multiple rejects into a single reject message but
now we give the same "Wait Indication" in all four entries. We need to
do a bit better than that. Is there a "master" bug for things to improve
with many MS?
The other thing I wondered about. Maybe we keep a small ring buffer of
bits we have seen in channel required messages? If we see requests in
near by GSM frames there is little point in answering _any_ of them. We
might just create radio interference between them...
More information about the baseband-devel