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 F21973CB39 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:18:29 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1569784709; 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=PmClTk6ZBeDnMUQqxWFXdnqlKIKLeLEMugsjxY3medI=; b=Ig9PRe0REloFHTN6eLSH8Ye+CEKglBxpRzrSaW4PwSrDQw++X8n7NHsl+NXtbIlDXfUQtS UTih+mSxHQBYiwDzCfRKIIDiEfPsHXkyo3jXCBU88b27xfDw+ipyT76pcs3EcRiZZAe47k Ss2Q9fmxLheAcflO5IZTsTWL5BQ+JGA= Received: from mail-lf1-f71.google.com (mail-lf1-f71.google.com [209.85.167.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-102-QEe7-cBgNhmVEongxD59OA-1; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:18:27 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f71.google.com with SMTP id c7so2130287lfh.9 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 12:18:27 -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=l7VGnnlSPM+qdvP47z76jYbpQR9HF1SiHUYNg1d9q/Q=; b=BFEeaNVzgALaSfn2Ias6XEyRc1WLLzTQfqsahHEOjd0Q2Gp+4X32Fbqbjeu0HmLeOX bOvRbhmAzbdaHoISaURijf9zDdp+boXVJd1KlFueTqCiJFDOJkxHwOZsr2q1F6RMrHDt V7zNRVS7bnZABR9rYs2kZJAjIyVXBpJjiHcMoXEQ90S76FYsCYM5s7uTRynxRWnlAurV 1h+e4DR7oku7g8yvh7jDOFfsOBlyU0qXsKJeuvbXi+PRrt07oxGsXYf40avoBVWqphE8 69VuN1BZ52ExPFS+ob2g04iD3VIKXkfMw3P6OTDGfbXN25NWV/xIQPO363ojPKWyogzC 4aSg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWwQuCLT3iWOF03b716QAWp2rmqEwlUNoPdCR5WNRRHxDTlYbHK 5GohJq6vHVVwREUUH0YvSuGWcVrKuR8bCsccpyRrnKzIuWF6A78uuwujIHvqyvas9CZMNvPAtXr ut1kuIFwnQ1NIKPhyTnvDYp/YF+rdsOzk548= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9b4f:: with SMTP id o15mr9835468ljj.142.1569784706278; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 12:18:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzuKThtVHIaZkeRIfxRmJqFrWP5oLP8/LYRgpK43G2sqqHQSjWRoJBhb9NyYJFDSUMjSUyH6w== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9b4f:: with SMTP id o15mr9835452ljj.142.1569784706098; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 12:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk (borgediget.toke.dk. [85.204.121.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z72sm2469159ljb.98.2019.09.29.12.18.25 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 29 Sep 2019 12:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4A27318063D; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 21:18:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Kan Yan , Yibo Zhao Cc: 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> X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 21:18:24 +0200 Message-ID: <87muemykqn.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MC-Unique: QEe7-cBgNhmVEongxD59OA-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: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 19:18:30 -0000 Kan Yan writes: >> No, ath10k would continue to do what it was always doing. Drivers that >> can report after-the-fact airtime usage per-frame (like ath9k) will >> continue to do that. In both of those cases, the airtime estimate is >> only used to throttle the queue, not to schedule for fairness. > You are right, I didn't realize ath9k reports per frame airtime usage. > >> Yeah, I was wondering about that. Makes sense. Why 24ms, exactly? > The per interface 24 ms queue limit is an empirical number that works > well for both achieve low latency when there is a lot of stations and > get high throughput when there is only 1-2 stations. We could make it > configurable. Right. "Found by trial and error" is a fine answer as far as I'm concerned :) But yeah, this should probably be configurable, like BQL is. >> BTW, I think Felix' concern about powersave was in relation to AQL: If >> we don't handle power save in that, we can end up in a situation where >>the budget for packets allowed to be queued in the firmware is taken up >> entirely by stations that are currently in powersave mode; which would >> throttle the device completely. So we should take that into account for >> AQL; for the fairness scheduler, stations in powersave are already >> unscheduled, so that should be fine. > I think the accounting for the airtime of frames in the power saving > queue could affect both the fairness scheduler and AQL. > For chipset with firmware offload, PS handling is mostly done by > firmware, so host driver's knowledge of PS state could be slightly > out-of-dated. The power save behavior also make it harder to the > airtime_weight correct for the fairness scheduler. Hmm, maybe. I'm not sure how significant this effect would be, but I guess we'll need to find out :) > Powersave mode's impact to AQL is much smaller. The lower per station > queue limit is not impacted by other stations PS behavior, since the > estimated future airtime is not weighted for other stations and a > station won't get blocked due to others stations in PS mode. > Station in PS mode do affects AQL's higher per interface limit, but in > an inconsequential way. The per interface AQL queue limit is quite > large (24 ms), hence airtime from packets in PS queue is unlikely to > have a significant impact on it. Still, it will be better if the > packet in power saving queue can be taken into account. 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... >> > make it easier to schedule multiple stations, I think it has some meri= t >> > that makes it worth trying out. We should probably get the AQL stuff >> > done first, though, and try the virtual time scheduler on top of that. >> Agree that we should get the AQL stuff done first since I believe it >> will help to fix the issue mentioned above. > That sounds like a good plan. The virtual time scheduler is more > involved and will take more work to get it right. It make sense to get > AQL done first. 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... -Toke