Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [PATCH v11 4/4] mac80211: Use Airtime-based Queue Limits (AQL) on packet dequeue

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>]

Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name> writes:

> On 2020-02-27 11:07, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2020-02-26 22:56, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name> writes:
>>>>> - We need an API that allows the driver to change the pending airtime
>>>>> values, e.g. subtract estimated tx time for a packet.
>>>>> mt76 an ath9k can queue packets inside the driver that are not currently
>>>>> in the hardware queues. Typically if the txqs have more data than what
>>>>> gets put into the hardware queue, both drivers will pull an extra frame
>>>>> and queue it in its private txq struct. This frame will get used on the
>>>>> next txq scheduling round for that particular station.
>>>>> If you have lots of stations doing traffic (or having driver buffered
>>>>> frames in powersave mode), this could use up a sizable chunk of the AQL
>>>>> budget.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm a bit more skeptical about this. If the driver buffers a bunch of
>>>> packets that are not accounted that will hurt that station due to extra
>>>> latency when it wakes up. For ath9k, this is the retry_q you're talking
>>>> about, right? The number of packets queued on that is fairly limited,
>>>> isn't it? What kind of powersave buffering is the driver doing, and why
>>>> can't it leave the packets on the TXQ? That would allow them to be
>>>> scheduled along with any new ones that might have arrived in the
>>>> meantime, which would be a benefit for latency.
>>> For mt76 there should be max. 1 frame in the retry queue, it's just a
>>> frame that was pulled from the txq in a transmission attempt but that it
>>> couldn't put in the hw queue because it didn't fit in the current
>>> aggregate batch.
>> 
>> Wait, if it's only a single frame that is queued in the driver, how is
>> this causing problems? We deliberately set the limit so there was a bit
>> of slack above the size of an aggregate for things like this. Could you
>> please describe in a bit more detail what symptoms you are seeing of
>> this problem? :)
> It would be a single frame per sta/txq. I don't know if it will cause
> problems in practice, it's just a potential corner case that I found
> during review. I'd imagine this would probably show up in some
> benchmarks at least.
> I'm not seeing any symptoms myself, but I also haven't run any intricate
> tests yet.

See my other reply; I'm not convinced this behaviour is wrong :)

-Toke