From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.218.169]:44563 "EHLO mail-bw0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754302AbZDPLBj (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:01:39 -0400 Received: by bwz17 with SMTP id 17so332091bwz.37 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:01:37 -0700 (PDT) To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] mac80211 powersave improvements References: <20090415171046.336006351@sipsolutions.net> From: Kalle Valo Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:01:36 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20090415171046.336006351@sipsolutions.net> (Johannes Berg's message of "Wed\, 15 Apr 2009 19\:10\:46 +0200") Message-ID: <87iql4981b.fsf@litku.valot.fi> (sfid-20090416_130142_806176_C3951E7E) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johannes Berg writes: > Hi, Hallo, > This series contains the following: > > 1) improve powersave to only allow it when a single > managed interface is active > > 2) disable PS when the maximum networking latency > applications are are willing to put up with is > smaller than the beacon interval -- in that case > we cannot allow the AP to buffer frames No problem with these. > 3) enable powersave by default > > The last part might be controversial? I think this a bad idea. For normal users we should not enable powersave by default, at least not yet. I believe that there would be so much problems that we would have to revert the change eventually. > Should we have a default setting for the dynamic PS > timeout? Yes. Having timeout zero makes no sense in normal laptop use. > Oh also -- below is a small program to play with the > pm_qos framework, feel free to rip it for anything. Thanks, this is useful. -- Kalle Valo