On 2012-03-19 11:05 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 11:01 +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote: > >> > I'm not really convinced, for making them deferrable we should analyse >> > the consequences of that more carefully, for example it seems possible >> > that the system wakes up to send a packet, and then the first thing that >> > happens is a few aggregation handshakes ... that wastes a lot of time >> > and power. >> How is that any more expensive than triggering a wakeup before that time >> caused by the session timer expiry? > > It might not be more expensive, but the timing would be odd? You'd tear > down the session just to set it up again? I don't think it matters, since it's an extremely rare case anyway, and without my change it would have to re-establish the aggregation session anyway. It's much more likely for it to run into a wakeup from something else on the system before that happens. >> > Also, at least for TX aggregation, you don't even give them a timeout in >> > ath9k so that wouldn't really be an issue? >> minstrel_ht does give it a timeout. OpenWrt is not using the ath9k rate >> control module. > > Good point. Still though I suspect that this should be made > configurable, where aggregation sessions don't consume hardware > resources (like in our case) and you set them up with the first packet > it doesn't really make sense to time them out etc.? Yes, makes sense. - Felix -- 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
