From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC07F3BA8E for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 05:38:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1505813914; bh=rbLcYEVVx6jG4ZT9BN88STc+pPHM71Wv/ewS5aLqroQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=dw7+hUitdWFxJHli9pns8uDUDsCQwOfO5tPuODVEq9kxS5iWgtWQcQmU5+rKDfk40 lZjlPEm9mdbTJ4JnFDvzzkajEgnT0Fr9jQubkrkUUzYRiBZ41gccGVKRwWT/9PUBvi 2LjnE1sv5rAzGoptrujNrTz+mO4KB5a6R+Vc+Ma6zUMEkNFJ+Mr3v32gwmA1Gx8S60 wz8jSyFy+y3j+u5ivKDoxq4EebBAlvU18VHIPJshOJKBQYvESG8l7VXNoqiWOIThg8 jnfBLSYjjaDQIVJMy9gAPoU1rBWEop8M14fpXLU0jKkIsQLUVG9fdvuDmvkPs6eG4f 9qj7K6NmJJIYQ== To: Jon Pike Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:38:32 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87tvzzjaef.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Make-wifi-fast Digest, Vol 29, Issue 9 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, 19 Sep 2017 09:38:45 -0000 Jon Pike writes: > Hey Toke... > > Did you notice a guy responded to your commit on LEDE-DEV? He's reporting > no speed problems on his C2600... This is turning into a head > scratcher. Yeah, that is odd. Not really sure what to do about it at this point; maybe just leave it in and see if more people complain? > I was going to finally get back to this thread and suggest that at > least the C5/7 special build that rOOt manages on the LEDE forum could > benefit from this, (uh, except for that pesky lack of latency > reduction?) after it gets reverted from the nightly. > > Now, I'm just wondering what benifits there would be with this. I > realize I've pretty much forgotten now what kinds of bufferbloat > reduction and or airtime fairness bits ath10k had before, or would > have with this. So if you wouldn't mind going over that again, at > least I'd have the right info to pass along on what the benifits would > be... assuming it's reccomendable at this point. I don't have any ath10k cards in my own testbed, so I don't have a good dataset for the potential gains. Not sure if someone else on the list has done comparisons and can share results? -Toke