On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 16:59 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > >> > Well qdiscs don't just do that, depending on the configuration, so we >> > shouldn't rely on them doing just that. >> >> I know but this was the primary purpose of MQ to push the scheduling >> decision to HW if I'm not mistaken. > > I thought it was more about the upper level locking, ethernet hw really > just round-robins most of the time. Although it will, of course, be used > for scheduling decisions. > > Is aggregation really a scheduling decision though? > >> We really don't need anything else just queueing. > > Exactly, but qdiscs do most definitely not provide just queueing, and we > should not deprive the user of the ability to use qdiscs on wireless. > >> For example what the >> prioritization which is done in current wme.c >> is wrong and it won't pass certification and creates starvation. >> Tested and proved. > > Can you explain how starvation happens? In what scenarios? With or > without aggregation? for (queue = 0; queue < QD_NUM(hw); queue++) This always starts 0 prioritize dequeue the first frame. But what we need is RR and let HW to prioritize the transmission according AC Tomas -- 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
