Project

General

Profile

Actions

Bug #1759

open

Wrong calculation of DL window size for DL assignment

Added by arvind.sirsikar over 7 years ago. Updated about 4 years ago.

Status:
Stalled
Priority:
High
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
Start date:
06/28/2016
Due date:
% Done:

30%

Spec Reference:

Description

Hi,

When we create DOWNLINK TBF without existing UPLINK TBF i.e DL assignment on PCH case, The calculation of window size is found to be incorrect.

Description:
4 time slots is configured for DL and osmo-pcu.cfg is configured as window-size 64 104.

When we try to do IPERF in DL direction, PCU allocates window-size as 160 but configures 4 time slots
as seen by PCU VTY. Below is the result of VTY output.
DL TBFs
TBF: TFI=0 TLLI=0xf73d2ece (valid) DIR=DL IMSI=901555000001280
created=1095 state=0000000a 1st_TS=4 1st_cTS=6 ctrl_TS=6 MS_CLASS=0/1
TS_alloc=4 5 6! 7 CS=MCS-9 WS=160 V(A)=12 V(S)=12 nBSN=138
But we see proper calculation of window-size when DL assignement is done on PACCH. as seen by VTY interface below
DL TBFs
TBF: TFI=0 TLLI=0xf73d2ece (valid) DIR=DL IMSI=901555000001280
created=1095 state=0000000a 1st_TS=4 1st_cTS=6 ctrl_TS=6 MS_CLASS=0/1
TS_alloc=4 5 6! 7 CS=MCS-9 WS=480 V(A)=138 V(S)=139 nBSN=138

Thanks,
Aravind Sirsikar


Related issues

Related to OsmoPCU - Feature #1533: Separate the window handling from the TBF more clearlyFeedbackzecke02/22/2016

Actions
Related to OsmoPCU - Bug #1524: PACCH on the wrong timeslotFeedbackroh02/22/2016

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by laforge over 6 years ago

Actions #2

Updated by laforge over 6 years ago

  • Assignee changed from arvind.sirsikar to 4368
Actions #3

Updated by laforge over 6 years ago

  • Assignee changed from 4368 to msuraev
  • Priority changed from High to Normal
Actions #4

Updated by laforge over 6 years ago

  • Priority changed from Normal to High
Actions #5

Updated by msuraev over 6 years ago

I don't see explicit tests for it - only as part of larger TBF tests. So the first step would to add such a test.

Actions #6

Updated by msuraev over 6 years ago

  • Project changed from Cellular Network Infrastructure to OsmoPCU
Actions #7

Updated by msuraev over 6 years ago

  • Related to Feature #1533: Separate the window handling from the TBF more clearly added
Actions #8

Updated by msuraev about 6 years ago

  • Status changed from New to In Progress
  • % Done changed from 0 to 20

Related gerrit 5355, 5336-5341 are under review. Remaining parts: clearly differenciate between CCCH and PACCH assignment, figure out whyit makes a difference to window size calculations and test with different window sizes settings and available channels.

Actions #9

Updated by msuraev about 6 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Stalled
Actions #10

Updated by msuraev about 6 years ago

  • Status changed from Stalled to In Progress
  • % Done changed from 20 to 30

Patches were merged. Additional gerrit 5786 was sent for review.

Actions #11

Updated by msuraev about 6 years ago

5786 is merged, needs additional testing.

Actions #12

Updated by msuraev about 6 years ago

The window size parameter in vty defined as follows:

window-size <0-1024> [<0-256>]
Window size configuration (b + N_PDCH * f)
Base value (b)
Factor for number of PDCH (f)

So the configuration window-size 64 104 means that WS(1TS) = 64 + 1 * 104 = 168 and WS(4TS) = 64 + 4 * 104 = 480. By default f = 0.

Actions #13

Updated by msuraev about 6 years ago

  • Related to Bug #1524: PACCH on the wrong timeslot added
Actions #14

Updated by msuraev about 6 years ago

In addition to difference between PACCH and CCCH, the TBF can be assigned via CCCH but configrmed via PACCH (see rcv_control_ack() function). This and the related #1524 makes it harder to reproduce this reliably.

Related gerrit 6239 is under review.

Actions #15

Updated by laforge about 6 years ago

Hi Max,
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 03:45:50PM +0000, msuraev [REDMINE] wrote:

In addition to difference between PACCH and CCCH, the TBF can be assigned via CCCH but configrmed via PACCH (see rcv_control_ack() function). This and the related #1524 makes it harder to reproduce this reliably.

would it be possible to disable certain variants as a temporary hack?

Actions #16

Updated by msuraev about 6 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Stalled

Needs a way to reproduce this reliably.

Actions #17

Updated by laforge about 6 years ago

  • Assignee changed from msuraev to 4368
Actions #18

Updated by laforge over 5 years ago

Actions #19

Updated by laforge over 5 years ago

  • Assignee changed from 4368 to msuraev
Actions #20

Updated by laforge almost 5 years ago

  • Assignee changed from msuraev to lynxis
Actions #21

Updated by laforge about 4 years ago

  • Assignee deleted (lynxis)
Actions #22

Updated by pespin about 4 years ago

This needs a TTCN3 test in PCU_Tests_RAW.

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF

Add picture from clipboard (Maximum size: 48.8 MB)