From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCB3E3B2A4 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 02:57:59 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1569913079; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GRAFW8/U7zXvEEyNRQQ4ESdCPCLNo9vrPnN6FAlCs3Q=; b=O0j2BUeTO2vd31a7F8YG4FJwBov7MyipGOY9E/pVoi4MspFxEP8GcjbrZesF1jPiqcHqoc FbDLiMzoMoUH5kPXH3eQxqFoyzlrdldfrrKrgfe9PdXhZyI8F75jhc+C2EoI4yDs0Xi+bD VyCtWBLVydq+pyJyEkWcSqQi6iQBRm0= Received: from mail-lf1-f72.google.com (mail-lf1-f72.google.com [209.85.167.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-222-OOXz5UWAOIWju85WokoRKw-1; Tue, 01 Oct 2019 02:57:57 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f72.google.com with SMTP id r3so2570299lfn.13 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 23:57:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=FkyKJAiKEgiIJtm1wmYNEnaa9QuHfBYZjrXStMrtpN4=; b=Hk7OAo8sV5f/Uhtd9aCvGNLUjLmbrI26BPcx/QxcLAZIaNYhN+PIz2rXF7kMSxvdGA 5kNsAuU2E0DtZf301/Cupjwhpvi00CG6RiJnSreStgiv0HZGUlZbHsCOtulwKFLbno9e iGL0FSzrHbibVKsPeBz1jESPD0E+Toe9+aGvDuPB5s950PXmWhPIefpfVoUmPY1NyVzi O+ZGSJpeY9vnnJ0gkTwYI2yo9b47MdPdwz03EaK4EsjQWxz80GDUbikQm/wdC9VkFAg2 VdzaReith1r3cbvjDDf1RnO7CIuf/oP+SQxKO1SR1NKL2uarxwDjOweajzJeg5w2mdV4 OHFg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVh3M2dAns8wDOLpHLx55kQlRP9bCz+Cf1cpmEV7RJdeK85gR6X jrcUgvgNHHBpiDOIew6cbWUocpkkyUf1ztU3L+Z0ORKhOAdjxLSCJM2/KH/69d6kvFM8EtTEDJj ueEk6eNGKuxz90e2arjOdzLY+UzsCmZy5WXA= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4149:: with SMTP id c9mr857950lfi.128.1569913076364; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 23:57:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx74ouQXfD14eaZUyj6r+EeRdMOKORTSfS/bmZWcxUp8rc28I/codK30MLL5lUb9GzxFTpNfw== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4149:: with SMTP id c9mr857932lfi.128.1569913076182; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 23:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk ([2a00:7660:6da:443::2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c26sm359795lfp.20.2019.09.30.23.57.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 30 Sep 2019 23:57:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DA1D718063D; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 08:57:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Kan Yan Cc: Yibo Zhao , Felix Fietkau , Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, John Crispin , Lorenzo Bianconi , linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <156889576422.191202.5906619710809654631.stgit@alrua-x1> <156889576869.191202.510507546538322707.stgit@alrua-x1> <08f0ed6e-b746-9689-6dc8-7c0ea705666d@nbd.name> <87wodv19jl.fsf@toke.dk> <87tv8z13wv.fsf@toke.dk> <87r2421d4f.fsf@toke.dk> <87muemykqn.fsf@toke.dk> X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 08:57:53 +0200 Message-ID: <87imp9vtou.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MC-Unique: OOXz5UWAOIWju85WokoRKw-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [PATCH RFC/RFT 4/4] mac80211: Apply Airtime-based Queue Limit (AQL) on packet dequeue X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 06:58:00 -0000 Kan Yan writes: >> I guess the risk is lower when with a 24ms per-iface limit; but with >> enough stations I guess it could still happen, no? So we should probably >> handle this case... > Each txq (per sta, per tid) is allowed to release at least the lower > AQL limit amount of packet (default 4ms), which is not affected by > other station's PS behavior and 4ms should be sufficient for most use > cases. Ah, I thought you'd meant each station can queue MIN(4ms, 24ms-). I see that is not the case; it's up to 10ms as long as the total is less than 20ms, and up to 4ms otherwise.=20 > The 24ms per-interface limit is an optimization to get good benchmark > score in peak performance test, which usually only involve 1-2 > stations. Gotta get those benchmark numbers in ;) > The higher limit probably won't matter anymore when there are many > stations. I haven't noticed side effects due to PS behavior in the > ChromiumOS version. Still, it is better to be able to take frames in > PS queue in to account, As long as one station always gets its 4ms, I'm not too worried about PS; but that was not the case in my patch :) >> Cool. Are you going to submit a ported version of your implementation? >> Then we can work from the two submissions and see if we can't converge >> on something... > Working on porting, should have something ready before the end of this > week. Great! -Toke