From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-x233.google.com (mail-io0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 864F43B2A4 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:17:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-io0-x233.google.com with SMTP id i197so9423840ioe.9 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 05:17:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3MjcCWZJh2SwSRHgss7LqYcjKWtD5vyY9jTUvHNBAQ0=; b=ECaVW4xn023bDFlF/NJce39YqNXd8kXBPt5spfntSsguBGyiOpkYnSg53NPcb6jbGH qEJEhkBnGXlHSERP/0K8+7uaLRIpzIq4qCeO/A4ThJNoG1Bw1EsoRGxwNEf/zsYMdL1R puvGK8hXbH9bQWYS5J2qJKPCgPGpC6F/wBu1qDyD5gYSuyfDKBLXC5J6enjwFCX/BI9X cMzu7JyxCANVTkR9345/gfF/jF9U2Qz6y145wFSJB7PfthEoVMQNP41klZz3RIDX2/wJ ZyNBkwqlGxJ0z3eXhT9DqpBrui02+ySK+kTxZl8cKgXEAVHI3oQGqEntGmV3sQQTuCiH jMkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3MjcCWZJh2SwSRHgss7LqYcjKWtD5vyY9jTUvHNBAQ0=; b=gJb5A031k/p42tTgyYf2u3DkIscSP9mw94vfTchULpy9lap7/nEi0hSt+re7Pujrgs +gm9iWfUHVscmBHPRva0tvedI5Up+E6CkI0DkYUcg+GEyplrJS+2+KfzgBxouDtV4Qu9 EaRXEez5IwtBsG5+Ayc/682R/x98JKIiwoKnP7TEo+RYEbfT2pNM+JBnDfiLUBxbUiiB +dQr5m+wkhxFCD1r7Qa10p2AcGQp0biCwM4oHf/GHfP4HI7nXzhtr49TV9/JIEapGL2g dAFXhOh3WHtktPCQh1U/AzU1ZhR9KEX1FkISQ1vGUVu/aXygSFFa7Go0vT5d2SIRWB8E ogcw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUge0CFDgkntXC/crqcN/KXTRE50PVYX+/XlhbdeJqG49k/JAlVD gKZQ9INRn9fhcQWkMCfWcY/2QtkwlaTLmACG7BI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCJRNhrvcM4O8Q2wv7Y+2cjDMiyNBP1ysb6E0ZJ+fd6K5vdIfcSmYD2bmbhHZ/uw6gdeAkzD6y7nDlA0IVHecQ= X-Received: by 10.202.235.80 with SMTP id j77mr1153319oih.220.1505823447768; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 05:17:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.30.228 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 05:17:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87tvzzjaef.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87tvzzjaef.fsf@toke.dk> From: Adrian Popescu Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:17:27 +0300 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Cc: Jon Pike , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ce8ceb2ec79055989d739" 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 12:17:48 -0000 --001a113ce8ceb2ec79055989d739 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'll compile again from the latest sources to test again. Please don't revert the patch because of my report. On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Make-wifi-fast mailing list > Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast > --001a113ce8ceb2ec79055989d739 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'll compile again from the latest sources to tes= t again.

Please don't revert the patch because of my repor= t.

On Tu= e, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen <toke@toke.dk= > wrote:
Jon P= ike <jonpike54@gmail.com> = writes:

> Hey Toke...
>
> Did you notice a guy responded to your commit on LEDE-DEV?=C2=A0 He= 9;s reporting
> no speed problems on his C2600...=C2=A0 =C2=A0This is turning into a h= ead
> 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<= br> > 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<= br> > least I'd have the right info to pass along on what the benifits w= ould
> 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
_______________________________________________
Make-wifi-fast mailing list
Make-wifi-fast@list= s.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/mak= e-wifi-fast

--001a113ce8ceb2ec79055989d739--