On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 11:07 +0200, ext Kalle Valo wrote: > Juuso Oikarinen <juuso.oikarinen@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> > The problem here is that the latency at least cannot be used in any > >> > simple and/or general way I can think of to control the dynamic PS > >> > timeout. > >> > >> Can't you do something like this: > >> > >> pm_qos >= 1000 -> timeout 0 ms (aka. full power save) > >> pm_qos <= 100 -> timeout 100 ms > >> pm_qos <= 50 -> timeout 300 ms > >> > >> That is, just some arbitrary numbers but which affect dynamic ps > >> timeout. I haven't thought about the numbers at all, but they actually > >> don't matter because it's easy to change them inside mac80211. > > > > Theoretically I could, but I'm pretty sure whatever values I would > > choose would be unacceptable by others, as they would be tuned for a > > specific use. > > I don't see a problem with that. The current use of pm_qos is very > limited, I think it's all positive if we start using it more. > > > Also, although AFAIK barely anyone uses the DTIM interval which is > > determined based on th pm_qos, adding arbitrary rules like this to the > > side risks breaking something for someone. > > AFAIK the pm_qos values are not set in stone in any. Applications just > request something and kernel can do whatever it wants, even ignore it. > So I don't see any harm if we change how mac80211 uses pm_qos values. > And most probably this will change many times in the future. > Ok, you convinced me. I will send a RFC patch with the above, and will sub-sequentially be flamed to death ;) Be sure to look into that bug in wl1251 at some point, so I don't break it with this, if by chance I get this to go through ;) -Juuso -- 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
