On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 13:12 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 01:06:54PM -0800, Luis Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> > OK, but can't you still have a driver spam mac80211 with a lot of
> > ieee80211_tx_status_irqsafe() calls in soft irq context with the final
> > skb requiring the tx complete, in that case the queue *will* get stuffed
> > and you could potentially free more if so desired.
> >
> > Also, if our goal is to just avoid adding the skb if it does not require
> > a tx complete and our queue size is too large
>
> Hit send too early, I meant if our goal is to avoid adding the skb
> if we've reached our limit why not just ree it immediately instead
> of queing it and dequeing it. Wouldn't we even be able to just
> return and not bother mac80211 about it at all?
>
> >
> > if (!(info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_CTL_REQ_TX_STATUS) &&
> > num + 1 > IEEE80211_TX_STATUS_QUEUE_LIMIT)
> {
> > dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb);
> return;
> }
> > else
> > skb_queue_tail(&local->skb_queue)
>
Ah. Well, then we still would like them for rate control, just if we
can't keep up we drop older ones.
Not that it makes a whole lot of sense ... if you can't keep up with TX
status how did you manage to TX them to start with?
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
