From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:42753 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932707AbcI3Mv7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:51:59 -0400 Message-ID: <1475239915.17481.63.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20160930_145203_899398_A1AD3807) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mac80211: Set lower memory limit for non-VHT devices From: Johannes Berg To: Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:51:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87twcx5zll.fsf@toke.dk> References: <20160923195911.4572-1-toke@toke.dk> <20160923195911.4572-4-toke@toke.dk> <1475235230.17481.43.camel@sipsolutions.net> <87twcx5zll.fsf@toke.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > I kinda see the logic here - we really don't need to queue as much > > if we can't possibly transmit it out quickly - but it seems to me > > we should also throw in some kind of limit that's relative to the > > amount of memory you have on the system? > > Yes, ideally. That goes for FQ-CoDel as well, BTW. LEDE currently > carries a patch for that which just changes the hard-coded default to > another hard-coded default. Not sure how to get a good value to use, > though; and deciding on how large a fraction of memory to use for > packets starts smelling an awful lot like setting policy in the > kernel, doesn't it? Yeah, I agree it does seem awkward. Perhaps we should instead pick a low limit and let users change it more easily (i.e. not debugfs)? I don't know a good answer to this either. johannes