From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
To: Benjamin Beichler <Benjamin.Beichler@uni-rostock.de>,
Jean-Pierre TOSONI <jp.tosoni@acksys.fr>,
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>,
SEDE <s.deronne@televic.com>, ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Setting tx retry count in ath10k
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:48:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zhyn2v68.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c594f50b-a318-fbe2-847b-b76726eb1472@uni-rostock.de>
Benjamin Beichler <Benjamin.Beichler@uni-rostock.de> writes:
>>> For general internet traffic, a retry count of 30 is way too high; that
>>> is up to 120 ms of HOL blocking latency. Better to just drop the packet
>>> at that point.
>>>
>>> Ideally, the retry count should be dynamically calculated in units of
>>> time (which would depend on the rate and aggregate size), and also take
>>> queueing time into account. I've been meaning to experiment with this
>>> for minstrel and ath9k, but haven't gotten around to it...
> We have running current research on this topic but focused on the
> effects in 802.11s mesh networks. With multiple(forwarding) wireless
> links, the retry limit have a bigger impact as only in managed mode
> setups, since every forwarding step is doing repeated transmissions.
> But I also totally agree, that the retry count needs to be considered
> in the bufferbloat/airtime queuing stuff, which Toke proposed.
Ah, cool. Looking forward to seeing your results. And yeah, it's
probably even worse in meshes...
> Nonetheless, since this ambiguities are known, wouldn't it be nice to
> clean up all this patches to enable at least ath9k and ath10k to do
> the right thing, or do anybody can tell why they weren't included the
> first time ?
No objection from me, certainly! :)
-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@toke.dk>
To: Benjamin Beichler <Benjamin.Beichler@uni-rostock.de>,
Jean-Pierre TOSONI <jp.tosoni@acksys.fr>,
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>,
SEDE <s.deronne@televic.com>, ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Setting tx retry count in ath10k
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:48:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zhyn2v68.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c594f50b-a318-fbe2-847b-b76726eb1472@uni-rostock.de>
Benjamin Beichler <Benjamin.Beichler@uni-rostock.de> writes:
>>> For general internet traffic, a retry count of 30 is way too high; that
>>> is up to 120 ms of HOL blocking latency. Better to just drop the packet
>>> at that point.
>>>
>>> Ideally, the retry count should be dynamically calculated in units of
>>> time (which would depend on the rate and aggregate size), and also take
>>> queueing time into account. I've been meaning to experiment with this
>>> for minstrel and ath9k, but haven't gotten around to it...
> We have running current research on this topic but focused on the
> effects in 802.11s mesh networks. With multiple(forwarding) wireless
> links, the retry limit have a bigger impact as only in managed mode
> setups, since every forwarding step is doing repeated transmissions.
> But I also totally agree, that the retry count needs to be considered
> in the bufferbloat/airtime queuing stuff, which Toke proposed.
Ah, cool. Looking forward to seeing your results. And yeah, it's
probably even worse in meshes...
> Nonetheless, since this ambiguities are known, wouldn't it be nice to
> clean up all this patches to enable at least ath9k and ath10k to do
> the right thing, or do anybody can tell why they weren't included the
> first time ?
No objection from me, certainly! :)
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-19 13:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-17 0:37 Setting tx retry count in ath10k Ben Greear
2018-07-17 0:37 ` Ben Greear
2018-07-17 7:39 ` Benjamin Beichler
2018-07-17 7:39 ` Benjamin Beichler
2018-07-17 7:56 ` SEDE
2018-07-17 7:56 ` SEDE
2018-07-17 15:07 ` Ben Greear
2018-07-17 15:07 ` Ben Greear
2018-07-18 15:50 ` Jean-Pierre TOSONI
2018-07-18 15:50 ` Jean-Pierre TOSONI
2018-07-18 16:00 ` Ben Greear
2018-07-18 16:00 ` Ben Greear
2018-07-18 16:21 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-07-18 16:21 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-07-18 17:01 ` Jean-Pierre TOSONI
2018-07-18 17:01 ` Jean-Pierre TOSONI
2018-07-18 18:27 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-07-18 18:27 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-07-19 12:39 ` Benjamin Beichler
2018-07-19 12:39 ` Benjamin Beichler
2018-07-19 13:21 ` Ben Greear
2018-07-19 13:21 ` Ben Greear
2018-07-19 13:48 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2018-07-19 13:48 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
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=87zhyn2v68.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@toke.dk \
--cc=Benjamin.Beichler@uni-rostock.de \
--cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=jp.tosoni@acksys.fr \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=s.deronne@televic.com \
/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.