[Make-wifi-fast] [PATCH RFC v4 1/4] mac80211: Add TXQ scheduling API

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen toke at toke.dk
Tue Sep 18 16:41:55 EDT 2018

Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar at codeaurora.org> writes:

>>> Also an option to add the node at head or tail would be preferred. If
>>> return_txq adds node at head of list, then it is forcing the driver to
>>> serve same txq until it becomes empty. Also this will not allow the
>>> driver to send N frames from each txqs.
>> The whole point of this patch set is to move those kinds of decisions
>> out of the driver and into mac80211. The airtime scheduler won't 
>> achieve
>> fairness if it allows queues to be queued to the end of the rotation
>> before its deficit turns negative. And obviously there's some lag in
>> this since we're using after-the-fact airtime information.
> Hmm.. As you know ath10k kind of doing fairness by serving fixed frames
> from each txq. This approach will be removed from ath10k.
>> For ath9k this has not really been a problem in my tests; if the lag
>> turns out to be too great for ath10k (which I suppose is a possibility
>> since we don't get airtime information on every TX-compl), I figure we
>> can use the same estimated airtime value that is used for throttling 
>> the
>> queues to adjust the deficit immediately...
> Thats true. I am porting Kan's changes of airtime estimation for each
> msdu for firmware that does not report airtime.

Right. My thinking with this was that we could put the per-frame airtime
estimation into ieee80211_tx_dequeue(), which could track the
outstanding airtime and just return NULL if it goes over the threshold.
I think this is fairly straight-forward to do on its own; the biggest
problem is probably finding the space in the mac80211 cb?

Is this what you are working on porting? Because then I'll wait for your
patch rather than starting to write this code myself :)

This mechanism on its own will get us the queue limiting and latency
reduction goodness for firmwares with deep queues. And for that it can
be completely independent of the airtime fairness scheduler, which can
use the after-tx-compl airtime information to presumably get more
accurate fairness which includes retransmissions etc.

Now, we could *also* use the ahead-of-time airtime estimation for
fairness; either just as a fallback for drivers that can't get actual
airtime usage information for the hardware, or as an alternative in
cases where it works better for other reasons. But I think that
separating the two in the initial implementation makes more sense; that
will make it easier to experiment with different combinations of the

Does that make sense? :)


More information about the Make-wifi-fast mailing list