On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11 February 2015 at 09:57, Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 10 February 2015 at 15:19, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 11:33 +0100, Michal Kazior wrote:
>>>
>>>> + if (msdu->sk) {
>>>> + ewma_add(&ar->tx_delay_us,
>>>> + ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(ktime_get(), skb_cb->stamp)) /
>>>> + NSEC_PER_USEC);
>>>> +
>>>> + ACCESS_ONCE(msdu->sk->sk_tx_completion_delay_cushion) =
>>>> + (ewma_read(&ar->tx_delay_us) *
>>>> + msdu->sk->sk_pacing_rate) >> 20;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> To some extent, every wifi driver is going to have this problem. Perhaps
>>> we should do this in mac80211?
>>
>> Good point. I was actually thinking about it. I can try cooking a
>> patch unless you want to do it yourself :-)
>
> I've taken a look into this. The most obvious place to add the
> timestamp for each packet would be ieee80211_tx_info (i.e. the
> skb->cb[48]). The problem is it's very tight there. Even squeezing 2
> bytes (allowing up to 64ms of tx completion delay which I'm worried
I will argue strongly in favor of never allowing more than 4ms packets
to accumulate in the firmware.
> won't be enough) will be troublesome. Some drivers already use every
> last byte of their allowance on 64bit archs (e.g. ar5523 uses entire
> 40 bytes of driver_data).
>
> I wonder if it's okay to bump skb->cb to 56 bytes to avoid the cascade
> of changes required to implement the tx completion delay accounting?
>
>
> Michał
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Dave Täht
thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
