From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:4433::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8353B3B29D for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:15:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1iY8mF-000496-P6; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 14:15:11 +0100 Message-ID: <994e486e8e82c01e70150eacf59dedf61b80fc65.camel@sipsolutions.net> From: Johannes Berg To: Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= , Kan Yan Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, nbd@nbd.name, yiboz@codeaurora.org, john@phrozen.org, lorenzo@kernel.org, rmanohar@codeaurora.org, kevinhayes@google.com Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 14:15:09 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87imnc3vk9.fsf@toke.dk> References: <20191119060610.76681-1-kyan@google.com> <20191119060610.76681-3-kyan@google.com> <3e7bea0cc643714ec90978a7999022544a39b118.camel@sipsolutions.net> <87tv6w3w92.fsf@toke.dk> <87imnc3vk9.fsf@toke.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 (3.30.5-1.fc29) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [PATCH v11 2/4] mac80211: Import airtime calculation code from mt76 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: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:15:14 -0000 On Fri, 2019-11-22 at 14:11 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > as in bitrate = 1/airtime? Dunno, maybe? How important is precision to > the bitrate calculations? Not *that* important, it's just sort of advisory for userspace. Though I think there's at least one place in mac80211 related to radiotap that actually does use it for airtime calculation, which should probably be changed to the new code now ... > > Or maybe we should keep both and use them as a sanity check for each > > other :P > > Hmm, yeah, it should be possible to write a selftest to iterate through > all rates and compare the output of each calculation, shouldn't it? > Where would be a good place to put that? No idea ... make a new kselftest thing for wireless? johannes