From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/9] bql: Byte Queue Limits Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:23:07 -0400 Message-ID: <1314303787.2329.1.camel@mojatatu> References: <1312808784.17202.39.camel@mojatatu> <1312809524.4372.29.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Reply-To: jhs@mojatatu.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Berg , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Tom Herbert Return-path: Received: from mail-vx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]:50085 "EHLO mail-vx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753704Ab1HYUXO (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:23:14 -0400 Received: by vxi9 with SMTP id 9so2023939vxi.19 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:23:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 08:29 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote: > BQL is dynamic, and will increase the queue limit more aggressively > than decrease it. So for instance, we can track the largest queue > needed over 30 seconds which should be stable in the presence even in > the presence of fluctuating bandwidth. The thing that worries me is > rather the HW queues conform to the queue characteristics described in > the patch. If transmit completions are random and not regular, BQL > probably can't function well. > I think thats the challenge ;-> I wouldnt say it is random, but if my understanding is correct the effect is a factor of number of stations etc. > If you'd like to bring this up on some wireless devices that would be > great, I don't have easy access to any right now, but I can try to > help otherwise. I am most curious as well... cheers, jamal