Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:18 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> And, well, Grant's data is from a single test in a noisy >> >> environment where the time series graph shows that throughput is all over >> >> the place for the duration of the test; so it's hard to draw solid >> >> conclusions from (for instance, for the 5-stream test, the average >> >> throughput for 6 is 331 and 379 Mbps for the two repetitions, and for 7 >> >> it's 326 and 371 Mbps) . Unfortunately I don't have the same hardware >> >> used in this test, so I can't go verify it myself; so the only thing I >> >> can do is grumble about it here... :) >> > >> > It's a fair complaint and I agree with it. My counter argument is the >> > opposite is true too: most ideal benchmarks don't measure what most >> > users see. While the data wgong provided are way more noisy than I >> > like, my overall "confidence" in the "conclusion" I offered is still >> > positive. >> >> Right. I guess I would just prefer a slightly more comprehensive >> evaluation to base a 4x increase in buffer size on... > > Kalle, is this why you didn't accept this patch? Other reasons? Just for reference, here are patchwork links: https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10559729/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10559731/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10559733/ The mac80211 patch is accepted and the ath10k patch is deferred. IIRC I put it deferred as I didn't see a real consensus about the patch and was supposed to look at it later, but haven't done yet. I don't have any issues with the patch, except maybe removing the duplicate define for 9377 (which I can easily fix in the pending branch). -- Kalle Valo
