<html><head></head><body>I guess the point is AQM is not really that expensive, even FQ AQM, traffic shaping however is expensive. But for wifi shaping is not required so AQM became feasible.<br><br>Regards<br> Sebastian<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 4 August 2021 14:46:30 CEST, Mikael Abrahamsson via Bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre dir="auto" class="k9mail">On Wed, 4 Aug 2021, Jonathan Morton wrote:<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">Linux-based CPE devices have AQM functionality integrated into the Wifi <br>stack. The AQM itself operates at layer 3, but the Linux Wifi stack <br>implementation uses information from layers 2 and 4 to improve <br>scheduling decisions, eg. airtime-fairness and flow-isolation (FQ). This <br>works best on soft-MAC Wifi hardware, such as ath9k/10k and MT76, where <br>this information is most readily available to software. In principle it <br>could also be implemented in the MAC, but I don't know of any vendor <br>that's done that yet.<br></blockquote><br>Does this work also with flowoffload enabled, or is that not accelerated <br>on for instance MT76? I'm surprised since MT76 can barely do 100 meg/s of <br>large packets using only CPU?<br><br><div class="k9mail-signature">-- <br>Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se<hr>Bloat mailing list<br>Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<br><a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat</a><br></div></pre></blockquote></div><div style='white-space: pre-wrap'><div class='k9mail-signature'>-- <br>Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</div></div></body></html>