From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 867F742B327 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2026 10:07:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788516428; cv=none; b=DobHtEIfCr0AVgJEjc1AElqYqAIEKd9f5TbFQhc/nLICdpv/qU+GO9jwaVEJ+Bgtk7qY9XBycpEqEYST1Oqj9i1ixwUNX5UrdLsVH+LWjNwaBaOD8lPz6ToHOev3jX/M5tgegHSOpHsCnj4y/s7b2CY2wj00lAMyz4uj3v4tGek= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788516428; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eEciKaSicdvlCHAjQgOJX0kNhklizwVSJlfI6kNgJ/8=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=W2YhdDF5iWGuVfTIhNytSKvrIdfJDpYCTDXx7/2aoBWQN/TchlFR70U3/Q7WJcQOT1rif4XFbTiED2j8V+JLi7LxLPKxOm1Od2h0pAD3gqHBg57UBf0AqM6Rik+Fy7keZVQEp0vAXhsOoMiIGNkabCFtwMr9c3Y6pXMcziTxfsk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=W6PAh6L/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="W6PAh6L/" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=1YJlE8wz/VGuWwKssJ/7Qygo3EC3/YliaexWEI+BIzg=; t=1788516426; x=1789726026; b=W6PAh6L/aLibkSVJI/hVVBMNKOjXVqWG039aWOqynNm2xqh idIxtS0lSaTNliLLuBaWDiODkl3Z1HWRDANen4Ki54lVUPLCIRwGVYzeRpFSBYHEyYu9j+MJL4AKU nh5ljbifoQDAx6a6Tq29fLQXoxpruilWFCE2DBfWeJJlMi0zO6mAdj/Bmnv0utG4XwTX3tNXL3A0l Z3gD5TU2C8F1epGD+vbGyX+9uYHRsCXVISfO6NbsSZf+FPK/pUKZZ6knWgmVmBjeEchsuRlv9+5Z/ JkRdIlgcydLLCTtYBeNS9VXTd2kKT7JJKcqPO00ruJP1x5ZZHUj6QeUSrp2MttXA==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__ECDSA_SECP256R1_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1x2Qp5-00000001Jy6-0x3a; Fri, 04 Sep 2026 12:07:03 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: mac80211: scale the airtime queue limit by the station's weight From: Johannes Berg To: Julius Bairaktaris Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, toke@toke.dk Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2026 12:07:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: (sfid-20260904_120304_814384_BD653DFA) References: <20260824142435.1757391-1-julius@bairaktaris.de> <6d033c71732e8ad2df4abcde1d38d89e2536609f.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20260904_120304_814384_BD653DFA) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.60.2 (3.60.2-1.fc44) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Fri, 2026-09-04 at 10:02 +0000, Julius Bairaktaris wrote: > > ath11k doesn't appear to use ieee80211_next_txq(), so it doesn't get > > this and then AQL doesn't really work, I guess? >=20 > ath11k is using the generic handler >=20 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/mac.c: > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0.wake_tx_queue = =3D ieee80211_handle_wake_tx_queue, >=20 > which runs the ieee80211_next_txq() loop itself. Oops, my bad. > What is missing is > the AQL feature bit and the airtime reporting, which my series on > ath-next adds. The numbers in this patch were taken with that series > applied, so AQL and the DRR were both active when the weight did > nothing. >=20 > > But for a driver that *does* use it, I believe this change is wrong. >=20 > I agree with that. It would have to be gated so that drivers like > ath9k don't get it. Now I'm confused - I was thinking it'd be wrong _only_ for ath9k etc., but you just corrected me and said that ieee80211_next_txq() is called anyway, so then wouldn't it also be wrong on ath11k? Or not wrong on all? > There is also the possibility of dropping this change and letting > ath11k pass the weight to the firmware's own ATF, for which the WMI > commands are already in wmi.h but unused. I haven't tested this yet, > it's just a theory, but mac80211 would stay untouched. What do you > think? No idea, sorry. johannes