From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: Luca Muscariello <muscariello@ieee.org>
Cc: Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com>,
bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] Bufferbloat on 4G Connexion
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 11:34:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y2xalc62.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH8sseSVxOFU3No69FTb_Aorz=ewEiqbnbjoaFaQj6+FJFKR=g@mail.gmail.com>
Luca Muscariello <muscariello@ieee.org> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:27 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> On Oct 23, 2019, at 5:54 AM,<erik.taraldsen@telenor.com <mailto:
>> erik.taraldsen@telenor.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If you could influence the 4G vendors to de-bloat their equipment,
>> >> would you recommend BQL, L4S or codel/cake?
>> >
>> > I've been enjoying this discussion and wonder whether the work going
>> > on in the make-wifi-fast
>> > (https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/make-wifi-fast/) is relevant.
>> >
>> > I only have a 30,000 foot understanding of this work, but it seems the
>> > use of AQL (Airtime Queue Limit) maps better onto the vagaries of
>> > 4G/5G radio transmissions than BQL. Specifically, having a measurement
>> > of the actual time it takes to transmit a packet might give additional
>> > information about the current link speed, with the potential for
>> > adjusting the codel target, etc.
>>
>> Indeed, I suspect something like AQL would work for LTE as well. At the
>> right level; think this might need to be in the firmware (which in turn
>> could push back on the host).
>>
>> > Separately, I also wonder whether the Air Time Fairness algorithm
>> > might provide a benefit if the cellphone tower station manufacturers
>> > chose to get into the game.
>>
>> LTE base stations already does TDMA scheduling (which they can do easily
>> because they are centralised and own the license band); airtime fairness
>> is about getting the same benefits into WiFi that LTE has been enjoying
>> from the get-go :)
>>
>
> There is one main difference between ATF and the kind of TDMA
> realized by an LTE scheduler (but also HSDPA/HSUPA).
> Toke correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> The current ATF scheduler for WiFi does airtime-DRR based on the
> current PHY rates, is that right? Side question, how do you measure
> current?
s/current/last/. The ATF scheduler does everything after-the-fact, by
accounting the actual TX time of a transmission after it has completed.
So no fancy scheduling or prediction tricks are needed; with the
tradeoff being coarser granularity of the fairness achieved (i.e., there
can be unfairness on short timescales).
In the airtime queue limit work that's ongoing, we do ahead-of-time
airtime estimation to limit queueing in firmware. But this still just
uses the last TX rate recorded for the given station to calculate the
estimate.
> In LTE TDMA makes use of what is called multi-user diversity gain
> by scheduling users when they are at their relative best radio condition.
> Typically the user with the best current radio condition NORMALIZED
> over the average radio conditions. The average can be based on a
> moving average or a sliding window. This is the case of the widely used
> David Tse's proportional fair scheduler.
>
> This means that TDMA is still in place to share air-time fairly but the
> scheduler will tend to avoid bad radio conditions.
>
> From a theoretical point of view if you do that the total capacity
> of the AP can increase with the number of stations (I think logarithmically)
> as the scheduler surfs across radio quality peaks and not the average radio
> quality. Very smart.
>
> In LTE this is doable as the scheduling time slot is 1ms and the
> feedback channel is as fast. Not all TDMAs are equal.
Yeah, the LTE MAC is pretty cool. Just a shame that the equipment is so
expensive :(
> Maybe the current scheduler in WiFi can be improved to do that. Maybe.
I think 802.11ax is going in that direction. Nothing nearly as advanced,
but at least there's the possibility of a dedicated back channel...
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-24 9:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.865.1571824497.1240.bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
2019-10-23 11:56 ` Rich Brown
2019-10-23 12:27 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-24 7:26 ` Luca Muscariello
2019-10-24 9:34 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2019-10-24 12:55 ` Luca Muscariello
2019-10-24 14:02 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-23 17:52 ` David Lang
2019-10-24 11:51 ` erik.taraldsen
2019-10-24 12:14 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-10-24 12:14 ` Jonathan Morton
2019-10-11 14:56 Guillaume ROBIER
2019-10-22 21:02 ` Jonathan Morton
2019-10-23 7:28 ` erik.taraldsen
2019-10-23 8:24 ` David Lang
2019-10-23 8:37 ` Sebastian Moeller
2019-10-23 9:54 ` Jonathan Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87y2xalc62.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=muscariello@ieee.org \
--cc=richb.hanover@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox