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 255163B29E for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 15:23:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.92.2) (envelope-from ) id 1iHYbm-0007aT-Vs; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 21:23:51 +0200 Message-ID: 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, Felix Fietkau , Yibo Zhao Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 21:23:49 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87pnj9n55y.fsf@toke.dk> References: <20191004062151.131405-1-kyan@google.com> <20191004062151.131405-2-kyan@google.com> <87imp4o6qp.fsf@toke.dk> <87pnj9n55y.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 1/2] mac80211: Implement Airtime-based Queue Limit (AQL) 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: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:23:55 -0000 On Sun, 2019-10-06 at 19:40 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > That's a good point. I haven't thought about real simultaneous dual > > band chipset and such chipset do exists now. Is RSDB support coming to > > mac80211 soon? Just curious if it will be just virtual interfaces or > > something else. I chose "local" instead of "sdata" thinking about the > > case of several virtual interfaces (AP, STA, MESH) operates in the > > same channel, then the interface total could be a better choice. > > > > I am ok with moving the "aql_total_pending_airtime" into sdata, but > > afraid that's not the most optimal choice for the case of multiple > > virtual interfaces operates in the same channel. > > Maybe we could leave it in "local" for now. What do you think? > > I'd lean towards keeping it in 'local' for consistency with all the > other airtime stuff. For now, I think having multiple SSIDs on the same > radio is more common than the reverse (multiple bands on a single > radio). > > In particular, the per-group airtime fairness stuff is definitely > designed on the assumption that all BSSes share the same band. s/band/channel/, presumably. > So if and when we start supporting true multi-band devices we'll have to > change these things anyway. So might as well keep everything together so > it all gets fixed :) I guess I'm OK with that, but I'm pretty sure this will come up sooner rather than later ... What else is there though? johannes