Re: rt2800 tx frame dropping issue.

[Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>]

Hi Daniel

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 03:44:46PM -0600, Daniel Santos wrote:
> I almost managed to get that patch in a build to send to somebody who
> can reproduce the error in abundance, but they have 15 different people
> hammer the router to do it and we ended up sending them a few other
> experimental builds instead.
> 
> I'm still learning this driver, but I don't see where it creates a
> struct net_device -- was that something that came out after the driver
> was originally written? (And maybe gets implicitly created somewhere
> else?)  

It is done in ieee80211_if_add(), one netdev per vif.

> iiuc, the best way to do this is by setting tx_queue_len while
> the interface is down (via "ip link") and then allocating the queue when
> it's brought up.

We have diffrent queues at various levels in the network stack.
The queues size I plan to increase are referenced as HW queues

> Unless you know of a problem with this approach, I'm planning on making
> a patch just for that.  It will then be easier to tune for an end user's
> particular application. 

I don't think it's correct approch. Maybe module parameter will be
better just for testing. But since this is for routers/APs just
making build with diffrent tx queues size seems to be better
approach.

> For instance, if there is a small number of
> uses who just use a very large amount of bandwidth then buffer bloat
> could become a problem if it's too high.  But for a larger number of
> users I don't think the buffer bloat probably will matter as much as
> lost performance from dropping frames and needing to re-request many
> lost packets at the TCP layer.  This would also result in more uplink
> bandwidth being consumed.

Well, I guess that correct, but I still wish to see if increase queues
size do not cause big negative effect.

Thanks
Stanislaw