2010/9/24 Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 09/24/2010 10:46 AM, Nick Kossifidis wrote: >> >> 2010/9/23<greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> From: Ben Greear<greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> +#define ATH5K_VIF_MAX Â2048 >> >> This is too much !!! 2048 interfaces with a total of 4 beacon buffers >> 40 rx buffers and 200 tx buffers ? Has anyone tested this ? >> >> Also think about embedded devices, we don't want to waste memory like >> this... >> >>> + Â Â Â struct ieee80211_vif *vifs[ATH5K_VIF_MAX]; > > It only costs 4 or 8 bytes per pointer as long as no one actually > adds the vifs. > If no one uses more than lets say 512 why have 1500+ pointers ? > We've tested at least 128 on an old 1Ghz VIA system, and I'd hope for more > on more modern hardware. ÂI didn't think the driver should make the decision > to limit un-necessarily. > Have you tested it with multiple queues ? Bruno just added wme support on ath5k. Also how about rx/tx/beacon buffers ? Are they enough to support more vifs ? Note that we still have the "stuck queues" problem and putting more pressure on the card might make things worse. All I'm saying is that when we add a feature we have to be sure it works as expected, if we claim to support 2048 vifs then we must test it first and ensure it can work without issues. > If you still think this is too much, then tell me the biggest number > you wouldn't complain about :) > > Thanks, > Ben > lets go for 512 and see how it goes... -- GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-) Nick -- 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
