From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mac80211: optimize aggregation session timeout handling
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:34:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F670B9C.8040908@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1332151526.3359.15.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
On 2012-03-19 11:05 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 11:01 +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>
>> > I'm not really convinced, for making them deferrable we should analyse
>> > the consequences of that more carefully, for example it seems possible
>> > that the system wakes up to send a packet, and then the first thing that
>> > happens is a few aggregation handshakes ... that wastes a lot of time
>> > and power.
>> How is that any more expensive than triggering a wakeup before that time
>> caused by the session timer expiry?
>
> It might not be more expensive, but the timing would be odd? You'd tear
> down the session just to set it up again?
I don't think it matters, since it's an extremely rare case anyway, and
without my change it would have to re-establish the aggregation session
anyway. It's much more likely for it to run into a wakeup from something
else on the system before that happens.
>> > Also, at least for TX aggregation, you don't even give them a timeout in
>> > ath9k so that wouldn't really be an issue?
>> minstrel_ht does give it a timeout. OpenWrt is not using the ath9k rate
>> control module.
>
> Good point. Still though I suspect that this should be made
> configurable, where aggregation sessions don't consume hardware
> resources (like in our case) and you set them up with the first packet
> it doesn't really make sense to time them out etc.?
Yes, makes sense.
- Felix
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-19 10:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-17 23:00 [PATCH 1/3] cfg80211: use compare_ether_addr on MAC addresses instead of memcmp Felix Fietkau
2012-03-17 23:00 ` [PATCH 2/3] mac80211: reduce code duplication in debugfs code Felix Fietkau
2012-03-17 23:00 ` [PATCH 3/3] mac80211: optimize aggregation session timeout handling Felix Fietkau
2012-03-18 10:17 ` Johannes Berg
2012-03-18 11:13 ` Felix Fietkau
2012-03-19 8:39 ` Johannes Berg
2012-03-19 9:29 ` Helmut Schaa
2012-03-19 9:39 ` Johannes Berg
2012-03-19 10:36 ` Felix Fietkau
2012-03-19 10:50 ` Helmut Schaa
2012-03-19 10:52 ` Felix Fietkau
2012-03-19 10:55 ` Helmut Schaa
2012-03-19 10:58 ` Felix Fietkau
2012-03-19 10:01 ` Felix Fietkau
2012-03-19 10:05 ` Johannes Berg
2012-03-19 10:34 ` Felix Fietkau [this message]
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=4F670B9C.8040908@openwrt.org \
--to=nbd@openwrt.org \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.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).