Kan Yan <kyan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I guess the risk is lower when with a 24ms per-iface limit; but with >> enough stations I guess it could still happen, no? So we should probably >> handle this case... > Each txq (per sta, per tid) is allowed to release at least the lower > AQL limit amount of packet (default 4ms), which is not affected by > other station's PS behavior and 4ms should be sufficient for most use > cases. Ah, I thought you'd meant each station can queue MIN(4ms, 24ms-<other stations>). I see that is not the case; it's up to 10ms as long as the total is less than 20ms, and up to 4ms otherwise. > The 24ms per-interface limit is an optimization to get good benchmark > score in peak performance test, which usually only involve 1-2 > stations. Gotta get those benchmark numbers in ;) > The higher limit probably won't matter anymore when there are many > stations. I haven't noticed side effects due to PS behavior in the > ChromiumOS version. Still, it is better to be able to take frames in > PS queue in to account, As long as one station always gets its 4ms, I'm not too worried about PS; but that was not the case in my patch :) >> Cool. Are you going to submit a ported version of your implementation? >> Then we can work from the two submissions and see if we can't converge >> on something... > Working on porting, should have something ready before the end of this > week. Great! -Toke
