From: Gustavo Padovan <padovan@profusion.mobi>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: Mat Martineau <mathewm@codeaurora.org>,
Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>,
"linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] RFC: prioritizing data over HCI
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 16:12:10 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110805191210.GA2537@joana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1312499377.2158.36.camel@THOR>
* Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> [2011-08-04 19:09:37 -0400]:
> Hi Mat,
>
> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 13:37 -0400, Mat Martineau wrote:
>
> > I had a recent discussion with Gustavo about HCI queuing issues with
> > ERTM:
> >
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-bluetooth/msg13774.html
> >
> > My proposal is to move tx queuing up to L2CAP, and have the HCI tx
> > task only handle scheduling. Senders would tell HCI they have data to
> > send, and HCI would call back to pull data. I've been focused on
> > L2CAP - it would be possible to make a similar queuing change to
> > SCO/eSCO/LE, but not strictly necessary.
>
> Would you please clarify this approach (perhaps in a separate thread)?
>
> For example, how does having tx queues in l2cap_chan (instead of the
> hci_conn) solve the latency problems in ERTM when replying to
> REJ/SREJ/poll? Won't there potentially be just as much data already
> queued up? Is the plan to move the reply to the front of the tx queue
> because reqseq won't need to be assigned until the frame is actually
> pulled off the queue?
Exactly. ERTM connections can get dropped if the too much data is buffered and
we need to send final bit for example.
>
> > This is different from the problem you're solving, but as long as
> > we're talking about big changes to HCI tx, I think we could make some
> > changes that help out with prioritization and queuing across all
> > channels (whether they're going to the same remote device or different
> > remote devices).
> >
> > It could be more efficient to schedule this way since HCI wouldn't
> > have to iterate over all of the connections and queues - it would only
> > have to review the prioritized list of pending sends. Might be a more
> > fitting structure for QoS too.
>
> Wouldn't this 'prioritized list of pending sends' need to be locked to
> prevent update while reading? ISTM that contention might be fairly high
> for a single, shared resource like that.
>
>
> Regards,
> Peter Hurley
>
Gustavo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-05 19:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-03 13:11 [PATCH 0/3] RFC: prioritizing data over HCI Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2011-08-03 13:11 ` [RFC 1/3] Bluetooth: " Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2011-08-03 16:25 ` Peter Hurley
2011-08-03 17:49 ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2011-08-03 20:44 ` Gustavo Padovan
2011-08-03 20:53 ` Peter Hurley
2011-08-04 9:04 ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2011-08-03 13:11 ` [RFC 2/3] Bluetooth: set skbuffer priority based on L2CAP socket priority Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2011-08-03 13:11 ` [RFC 3/3] Bluetooth: make use sk_priority to priritize RFCOMM packets Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2011-08-03 21:14 ` [PATCH 0/3] RFC: prioritizing data over HCI Peter Hurley
2011-08-04 8:20 ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2011-08-04 12:55 ` Peter Hurley
2011-08-04 17:37 ` Mat Martineau
2011-08-04 23:09 ` Peter Hurley
2011-08-05 19:12 ` Gustavo Padovan [this message]
2011-08-08 23:29 ` Mat Martineau
2011-08-09 4:32 ` Gustavo Padovan
2011-08-10 17:38 ` Mat Martineau
2011-08-10 18:16 ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2011-08-10 22:15 ` Mat Martineau
2011-08-10 19:43 ` Peter Hurley
2011-08-11 0:18 ` Marcel Holtmann
2011-08-05 6:09 ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2011-08-05 19:14 ` Gustavo Padovan
2011-08-05 22:49 ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2011-08-06 18:53 ` Gustavo Padovan
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=20110805191210.GA2537@joana \
--to=padovan@profusion.mobi \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luiz.dentz@gmail.com \
--cc=mathewm@codeaurora.org \
--cc=peter@hurleysoftware.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).