Hi Luiz, On 7/30/12, Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Manoj, > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Manoj Sharma <ursmanoj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> One problem which I have faced using SO_PRIORITY is explained below. >> >> Suppose we have 2 links A & B and link A has higher priority than link >> B. And outgoing data transfer is active on both links. Now if device >> on link A goes far, there would be lot of failures and number of >> re-transmissions would increase for link A. Consequently at any time >> host would have significant number of packets for link A, getting >> accumulated due to poor quality of link.But since link A packets have >> higher priority, link B packets would suffer infinitely as long as >> link A packet queue in host is non-empty. Thus link B protocols may >> fail due to timers expiring and finally disconnection at upper layers. > > There is a mechanism to avoid starvation, also apparently you didn't > study the code since the priority is per L2CAP channel not per link so > we are able to prioritize per profile. > I would check how starvation is avoided. But for your information I did observe starvation practically. And I know that priority is per L2CAP. I mentioned links based on assumption that AVDTP and OBEX are connected with different devices. Hence priority would result into priority of connections in such case ;). >> Second problem: >> We have two links similar to above scenario. Say link A is being used >> by AVDTP and link B is being used by OBEX. Host can come across a >> situation where all controller buffers are used by OBEX and AVDTP is >> waiting for a free buffer. Now due to some reason (e.g. distance) OBEX >> link B goes weak. This results into delay in transmission of OBEX >> packets already held by controller and consequently AVDTP packets also >> get delayed which causes glitches in music streaming and user >> experience goes bad. > > That is exactly what SO_PRIORITY has fixed, by setting SO_PRIORITY you > prioritize AVDTP stream over OBEX which means AVDTP can use a bigger > part of the bandwidth while OBEX uses the remaining. > I disagree. Please try to understand the situation I explained again. There can be a scenario when host has only OBEX packets and no AVDTP, here irrespective of which channel has what priority OBEX may consume all ACL credits. At the same moment OBEX link goes weak (e.g.due to distance), this would delay the transmission of all OBEX packets held by controller. In the mean time, AVDTP packets reach Bluez but since there are no credits left, host would have to delay transmission of AVDTP until a OBEX packet is transferred and an NOCP is received. This would definitely cause a glitch on AVDTP streaming and end user experience would go bad. By reserving credits for AVDTP channel, we ensure that OBEX packets doesnt eat up all credits while AVDTP packets were absent. > The credit based algorithmic actually complicates more than solves the > problems here because it should actually fail if there is no enough > bandwidth as requested, so we would actually need to query how much > credits are available, also any type of bandwidth reservation might be > overkill with things like variable bit rate where you actually need to > know what is maximum possible bandwidth you need to reserve before > hand and that credits cannot be reserved by anyone else. > I agree, but we can provide a mechanism to allow only one channel to reserve bandwidth. In most cases it would be AVDTP streaming channel. Reserving at least one credit would allow preventing cases where non-AVDTP channel eats all credits due to unavailability of AVDTP packets. Please mind that since OBEX packets would be reaching bluez much faster than AVDTP, such situation may arise very easily. >> These are the basic problems which I have faced and hence felt >> necessity of a similar but different mechanism and came up with this >> solution. This solution fixes both of the problems explained above. >> Based on the explanation above your suggestion is required further. > > Could you please show us what system did you find this problem? We > could possible help you trying to figure out what is going wrong, > please note that SO_PRIORITY support was introduced in 3.0 and some > system don't actually use it, in fact so far I think only PulseAudio > make use of it. > Yes, but we forced Bluez AVDTP to use SO_PRIORITY on our system and faced the starvation problem explained above. Though I am going to study the priority patch again. > > -- > Luiz Augusto von Dentz > Thanks & best regards, Manoj -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
