On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7 July 2016 at 19:30, Valo, Kalle <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Ideally wake_tx_queue should be used regardless as >>> it is a requirement for reducing bufferbloat and >>> implementing airtime fairness in the future. >>> >>> However some setups (typically low-end platforms >>> hosting QCA988X) suffer performance regressions >>> with the current wake_tx_queue implementation. >>> Therefore disable it unless it is really >>> beneficial with current codebase (which is when >>> firmware supports smart pull-push tx scheduling). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> I think it's too late to send this to 4.7 anymore (and this due to my >> vacation). So I'm planning to queue this to 4.8, but if the feedback is >> positive we can always send this to a 4.7 stable release. >> > > Sorry guys, drowned. > So, yes, applying this patch does the job. That is gets me to the > results similar to > https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2016-May/041448.html > > Going to try latest code on same system... Can you try increasing the quantum to 1514, and reducing the codel target to 5ms? (without this patch?) > > Regards, > Roman > > _______________________________________________ > ath10k mailing list > ath10k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k -- Dave Täht Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! http://blog.cerowrt.org -- 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
