Lets make wifi fast again!
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>,
	make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] [RFC] mac80211: Add airtime fairness accounting
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 15:40:14 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1710061536220.4994@nftneq.ynat.uz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1507310319.19300.28.camel@sipsolutions.net>

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017, Johannes Berg wrote:

>> Well, calculating the duration from the rate and size is what ath9k
>> is currently doing, and that has all the information available to do
>> so (I did verify that the airtime was almost identical on the TX and
>> RX side for the same traffic).
>
> It's still iffy - with aggregation you might have a better idea of the
> total airtime, but not really see - in the higher layers - all the
> padding that comes between A-MPDUs etc. I think many drivers could do
> better by exposing the total airtime from the device/firmware, whereas
> exposing _all_ the little details that you need to calculate it post-
> facto will be really difficult, and make the calculation really hard.

perfect is the enemy of good enough :-)

I don't think the intent is to try and be a perfect accounting, if the total 
calculated time ends up being > 100%, it doesn't really matter, what matters is 
the relative behavior of the stations, and while the naive calculation fails to 
properly reward a station that's being more efficient, it is still good enough 
to punish stations using lower bandwidth modes (which is a far larger cause of 
problems)

while it's ideal to have the driver provide the airtime, falling back to a naive 
(but relativly cheap) calculation if a time isn't provided.

David Lang

  reply	other threads:[~2017-10-06 22:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-06 11:52 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2017-10-06 14:07 ` Johannes Berg
2017-10-06 14:18   ` Jonathan Morton
2017-10-06 17:12     ` Johannes Berg
2017-10-06 14:29   ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2017-10-06 17:18     ` Johannes Berg
2017-10-06 22:40       ` David Lang [this message]
2017-10-07 11:22       ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2017-10-09  7:15         ` Johannes Berg
2017-10-09  7:50           ` David Lang
2017-10-09  9:42           ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2017-10-09 11:40             ` Johannes Berg
2017-10-09 12:38               ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2017-10-09 18:50                 ` Johannes Berg
2017-10-09 20:25                   ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2017-10-11  8:55                     ` Johannes Berg
2017-10-11 13:50                       ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/make-wifi-fast.lists.bufferbloat.net/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.02.1710061536220.4994@nftneq.ynat.uz \
    --to=david@lang.hm \
    --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    --cc=toke@toke.dk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox