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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-19 14:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ 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 7:39 ` Benjamin Beichler
2018-07-17 7:56 ` SEDE
2018-07-17 15:07 ` Ben Greear
2018-07-18 15:50 ` Jean-Pierre TOSONI
2018-07-18 16:00 ` Ben Greear
2018-07-18 16:21 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-07-18 17:01 ` Jean-Pierre TOSONI
2018-07-18 18:27 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-07-19 12:39 ` Benjamin Beichler
2018-07-19 13:21 ` Ben Greear
2018-07-19 13:48 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [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=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 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).