On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 03:26:30PM +0530, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 15:19 +0530, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 02:54:00PM +0530, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 01:13 -0800, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote: > > > > When op_flush() is called with no drop (drop=false), the driver > > > > tries to tx as many frames as possible in about 100ms on every > > > > hw queue. During this time period frames from sw queue are also > > > > scheduled on to respective hw queue. > > > > > > Given how long HW queues currently are, I wouldn't set the timeout to > > > 100ms -- mac80211 has no expectation how long this will take, although > > > 100ms seems pretty long I'm not sure it'll always be sufficient? > > > > It is not that we wait for 100ms always, we return as soon as > > possible if there are no pending frames in sw/hw queues. I never > > hit this timeout though. In the worst case there can be 128 (4 aggr) > > frames pending in sw queue and 2 in hw queue. If we assume each one of > > these aggregates has 4ms duration, we at least need 24ms air time at > > the lowest rate. If they are not part of AMPDU, it would take a > > little bit more I think. So, probably we can give ~40ms timeout, > > is that reasonable?. If i'm reading the code correctly, iwlwifi > > seems to use 2000ms. > > Ok. I wasn't concerned about it being too high, I was thinking 100ms > might not be enough, but since you say it will be I guess it's fine. Yeah, I misread it. This 100ms timeout is on every ac queue and is pretty much good enough from my testing. Vasanth -- 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
