All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Subject: [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k: improve aggregation throughput by using only first rate
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:41:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C4DF2E8.7060502@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikcW5Gx6P2-6w_Vmeh7kEDGuEHcY=U_jbH3tYhT@mail.gmail.com>

On 2010-07-26 10:37 PM, Bj?rn Smedman wrote:
> 2010/7/26 Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>:
>> On 2010-07-26 9:23 PM, Bj?rn Smedman wrote:
>>> 2010/7/26 Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>:
>>> * When tx is aggregated most rate control probe frames end up inside
>>> aggregates and are never used for probing (effective probe frequency
>>> is divided by average aggregate length).
>> Nope, a probing frame never ends up inside an aggregate. It's always
>> sent out as a single frame, which is why I had to make the decision
>> about sending a probing frame more complex in minstrel_ht, compared to
>> minstrel - the previous 10% stuff was limiting aggregation size.
> 
> Ok, I must have jumped to conclusions. I looked quickly at the code
> and had the impression that it only cared about the RATE_PROBE flag if
> it was on the first subframe of the aggregate, and then I compared
> debug output from rc and xmit like this:
Oh, wait. It seems that you may be right after all. I think I was
remembering stuff from the wrong codebase again Well, at least what I
described is what I think the code should be doing ;)

- Felix

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: "Björn Smedman" <bjorn.smedman@venatech.se>
Cc: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k: improve aggregation throughput by using only first rate
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:41:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C4DF2E8.7060502@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikcW5Gx6P2-6w_Vmeh7kEDGuEHcY=U_jbH3tYhT@mail.gmail.com>

On 2010-07-26 10:37 PM, Björn Smedman wrote:
> 2010/7/26 Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>:
>> On 2010-07-26 9:23 PM, Björn Smedman wrote:
>>> 2010/7/26 Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>:
>>> * When tx is aggregated most rate control probe frames end up inside
>>> aggregates and are never used for probing (effective probe frequency
>>> is divided by average aggregate length).
>> Nope, a probing frame never ends up inside an aggregate. It's always
>> sent out as a single frame, which is why I had to make the decision
>> about sending a probing frame more complex in minstrel_ht, compared to
>> minstrel - the previous 10% stuff was limiting aggregation size.
> 
> Ok, I must have jumped to conclusions. I looked quickly at the code
> and had the impression that it only cared about the RATE_PROBE flag if
> it was on the first subframe of the aggregate, and then I compared
> debug output from rc and xmit like this:
Oh, wait. It seems that you may be right after all. I think I was
remembering stuff from the wrong codebase again Well, at least what I
described is what I think the code should be doing ;)

- Felix

  reply	other threads:[~2010-07-26 20:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-07-26 17:10 [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k: improve aggregation throughput by using only first rate Björn Smedman
2010-07-26 17:10 ` Björn Smedman
2010-07-26 17:44 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felix Fietkau
2010-07-26 17:44   ` Felix Fietkau
2010-07-26 19:23   ` Björn Smedman
2010-07-26 19:23     ` Björn Smedman
2010-07-26 19:41     ` Felix Fietkau
2010-07-26 19:41       ` Felix Fietkau
2010-07-26 20:37       ` Björn Smedman
2010-07-26 20:37         ` Björn Smedman
2010-07-26 20:41         ` Felix Fietkau [this message]
2010-07-26 20:41           ` Felix Fietkau
2010-07-27  4:48       ` Ranga Rao Ravuri
2010-07-27  4:48         ` Ranga Rao Ravuri

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

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4C4DF2E8.7060502@openwrt.org \
    --to=nbd@openwrt.org \
    --cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.