All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: leiwa@codeaurora.org
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix different tx duration output
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:07:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <875zrbrb1q.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <298a645b17aac0f5c466f011225533b0@codeaurora.org>

leiwa@codeaurora.org writes:

> On 2019-04-17 17:26, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Lei Wang <leiwa@codeaurora.org> writes:
>> 
>>> TX duration output of tx_stats in debugfs and station dump had big
>>> difference because they got tx duration value from different statistic
>>> data. We should use the same statistic data.
>> 
>> So are you sure you picked the most accurate one of the two? :)
>> 
>> -Toke
>
> Hi Toke,
>
> Yes.
> Now for ath10k, there are two ways to get tx duration output.
> One is got from tx_stats in debugfs reported by firmware. It is a total 
> value including all the frames which created by host and firmware sent 
> to the peer.
> And the second is calculated from 
> ath10k_htt_rx_tx_compl_ind()-->ieee80211_sta_register_airtime(), here 
> the tx duration just includes the data frames sent from host to the 
> peer.

So the difference is that the former includes control frames as well? Is
that the only difference? And what exactly is a "big difference" (from
the commit message)?

> So the first value is preferable for station dump.

Hmm, I'm not sure if I agree with this. I specifically added the
tx_duration to the station dump to be able to get the values used by the
airtime scheduler. This breaks with this patch.

-Toke

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: leiwa@codeaurora.org
Cc: ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix different tx duration output
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:07:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <875zrbrb1q.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <298a645b17aac0f5c466f011225533b0@codeaurora.org>

leiwa@codeaurora.org writes:

> On 2019-04-17 17:26, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Lei Wang <leiwa@codeaurora.org> writes:
>> 
>>> TX duration output of tx_stats in debugfs and station dump had big
>>> difference because they got tx duration value from different statistic
>>> data. We should use the same statistic data.
>> 
>> So are you sure you picked the most accurate one of the two? :)
>> 
>> -Toke
>
> Hi Toke,
>
> Yes.
> Now for ath10k, there are two ways to get tx duration output.
> One is got from tx_stats in debugfs reported by firmware. It is a total 
> value including all the frames which created by host and firmware sent 
> to the peer.
> And the second is calculated from 
> ath10k_htt_rx_tx_compl_ind()-->ieee80211_sta_register_airtime(), here 
> the tx duration just includes the data frames sent from host to the 
> peer.

So the difference is that the former includes control frames as well? Is
that the only difference? And what exactly is a "big difference" (from
the commit message)?

> So the first value is preferable for station dump.

Hmm, I'm not sure if I agree with this. I specifically added the
tx_duration to the station dump to be able to get the values used by the
airtime scheduler. This breaks with this patch.

-Toke

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-18  8:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-17  8:17 [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix different tx duration output Lei Wang
2019-04-17  8:17 ` Lei Wang
2019-04-17  9:26 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-04-17  9:26   ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-04-18  7:26   ` leiwa
2019-04-18  7:26     ` leiwa
2019-04-18  8:07     ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2019-04-18  8:07       ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-05-07 11:14       ` leiwa
2019-05-07 11:14         ` leiwa
2019-05-07 11:43         ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-05-07 11:43           ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-05-07 14:05 ` Kalle Valo
2019-05-07 14:05 ` Kalle Valo

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=875zrbrb1q.fsf@toke.dk \
    --to=toke@redhat.com \
    --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=leiwa@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.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.