[ath9k-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ath9k: use mac80211 intermediate software queues

Dave Taht <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.ath9k.lists.ath9k-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-wireless
Message-ID <CAA93jw78dCOsWnsR8ZuGDZJ6PigmZfU3nr-TjhdA0agH6M3OcQ@mail.gmail.com>
>>  struct ath_atx_tid {
>>       struct list_head list;
>> +     struct sk_buff_head i_q;
> Do we really need a third queue here? Instead of adding yet another
> layer of queueing here, I think we should even get rid of buf_q.

Less queues, more filling!

>
> Channel context based queue handling can be dealt with by
> stopping/starting relevant queues on channel context changes.

what can be done to reduce the impact of channel scans?

http://blog.cerowrt.org/post/disabling_channel_scans/

> buf_q becomes unnecessary when you remove all code in the drv_tx
> codepath that moves frames to the intermediate queue.
>
> Any frame that was pulled from the intermediate queue and prepared for
> tx, but which can't be sent right now can simply be queued to retry_q.
>
> This will also help with getting the diffstat insertion/deletion ratio
> under control ;)

The ideas here can apply elsewhere, also. Are you still actively
working with the mt76?

Anything else "out there" besides that and the ath5k worth looking at?

Am I seeing patches and firmware changes for better statistic keeping
on the ath10k that look promising for airtime fairness... or am I
delusional?

> elsewhere powersave was mentioned

How big can a powersave queue get?
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.