On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 12:33 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez > <lrodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Just a quick note on the progress of aggregation. It works but we still > > need to hanld the rtnl_lock() in a sane way. Johannes we proposing we > > use a workqueue for this. > > > > * iwl4965 has been tested to work > > * ath9k *does* xmit aggregate frames but throughput is low > > > > Since ath9k still needs some work we are looking into it. > > Tomas, have you had a chance to consider the workqueue usage > > for the rtnl_lock()? I figure to leave that to you as we > > are still looking into the throughput issues with aggreation with > > ath9k. > > Also, we currently handle aggregation buffering internally in our > driver so the whole amdpu_queue stuff is not required for us as we > don't have internal aggregation schedulers in hardware. For now we'll > use it though as we just want to get it working and for 2.6.27 we have > not alternative. For us, what will the ampdu_queues represent then? We > don't exactly have a limit on this except for the standard limitations > of 16 TIDs per station so what do you recommend to set this to? You've only enabled STA mode (and maybe IBSS but there it rarely matters) so anything like 8-16 would probably be fine. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
