Toke,

I'd suggest to add this in you list of references:

Godfrey Tan and John Guttag, Time-based fairness improves performance in
multi-rate WLANs. In Proc of USENIX 2004
https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/library/proceedings/usenix04/tech/general/full_papers/tan/tan.pdf

It's worth having a look to the APware project for freeBSD and Godfrey Tan
PhD thesis at MIT.

http://nms.csail.mit.edu/projects/apware/

this work predates 802.11n and aggregation.

Ten years ago I played with SFQ and madwifi for 802.11g
to get max-min time fairness (and so proportional rate fairness) with
excellent results.  The hacking I made was based on
using time quanta instead of bytes. Which required me to
get the current PHY rates (AP to all STAtions) and dynamically
compute/update SFQ time quanta.

It's surprising that 802.11 standard never considered time fairness in the
EDCF. A reason might be the time fairness might be enforced using the PCF.

IMO, It's a very good topic.
Thanks for bringing this up.

Luca


On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
wrote:

> So one of the components of tackling WiFi performance in Linux is (I
> believe) achieving airtime fairness (which turns out to be equivalent to
> proportional throughput fairness [1]). This is my attempt to summarise
> some thoughts on how to achieve this. I am by no means claiming these
> thoughts are necessarily (all) original, a lot of it has been floating
> around for a while; I'm simply trying to separate out airtime fairness
> as a separate issue that can be tackled orthogonally from the other
> parts of the stack (and that hopefully will be complementary). Feedback
> welcome, obviously :)
>
>
> In the literature, there are basically three approaches to achieving
> airtime fairness: Varying the MAC protocol timing parameters (e.g. TXOP
> duration or CWmin; see e.g. [2] for an over-engineered "optimal" way of
> doing this), varying the size of the aggregate (see [3]) and scheduling
> at the access point (see [4]). The two former approaches are distributed
> in nature (i.e. each node adjusts its behaviour in a way that will
> result in aggregate airtime fairness for the whole network) while the
> latter is access point-centric.
>
> Improving the access point behaviour is definitely the straight-forward
> way, and there are many obvious improvements that can result from that,
> as we've already seen in e.g. Michal's patch set. So looking at airtime
> fairness from the point of view of the access point makes sense.
>
> Basically, on a high level I think there are two things that we need to
> achieve good airtime fairness: Building the right aggregates (like in
> [3]), and scheduling (like in [4]) to compensate for when we get it
> wrong or when we can't control the aggregation because the firmware
> handles it.
>
> Now, of course the academic publications tend to be some way from
> something that can be implemented in practice; I simply refer to them
> here as concepts worth pursuing, and to shape thought. And, well,
> because I happen to be in academia myself ;)
>
>
> Getting closer to the practical level, what I plan to go poke at is:
>
> (1) The ath9k aggregation building logic, to try to achieve
>   constant-time aggregate size (for a suitable time quantum). Not sure
>   how much actually needs to change here; the standard already mandates
>   that an aggregate cannot be longer than 4ms, so the code already takes
>   time into account. And not sure how this interacts with rate
>   selection.
>
> (2) Adding a time-based scheduler to enforce airtime fairness. Building
>   this on FQ-CoDel seems like the sensible thing to do, to get the same
>   latency bonus for stations that only transmit occasionally. It would
>   be nice to be able to stick this in the mac80211 layer to make it
>   shared between drivers, but not sure the required timing information
>   is available at that layer.
>
>
> A non-exhaustive list of issues that need to be resolved one way or
> another:
>
> - What to account to each station's airtime? My thought would be
>   retransmissions, but not time spent waiting for other stations.
>
> - What about management, control and multicast frames? I'd say just
>   ignore it (at least for now).
>
> - How to measure the results? Can we dump the information from the
>   driver (and is it accurate)? Do we need to parse aircaps? Something
>   else?
>
>
> Hope this all makes sense. Comments very welcome! :)
>
> -Toke
>
>
> [1] Li Bin Jiang and Soung Chang Liew, "Proportional fairness in
> wireless LANs and ad hoc networks"
>
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1424745&isnumber=30730
>
> [2] P. Lin, W. I. Chou and T. Lin, "Achieving airtime fairness of
> delay-sensitive applications in multirate IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs,"
>
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6011749&isnumber=6011722
>
> [3] Minho Kim, Eun-Chan Park, and Chong-Ho Choi, “Adaptive Two-Level
> Frame Aggregation for Fairness and Efficiency in IEEE 802.11n Wireless
> LANs,”
> http://www.hindawi.com/journals/misy/2015/548109/
>
> [4] Li Bin Jiang and Soung Chang Liew, "Proportional fairness in
> wireless LANs and ad hoc networks,"
>
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1424745&isnumber=30730
> _______________________________________________
> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>