Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:53851 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759834AbYG3Jx4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:53:56 -0400 Subject: Re: iwlwifi aggregation info From: Johannes Berg To: Tomas Winkler Cc: linux-wireless , Jouni Malinen In-Reply-To: <1ba2fa240807290855p191eebesb1ecf2314031f688@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080729_175540_513294_CB416055) References: <1217331138.10489.24.camel@johannes.berg> <1217336023.10489.51.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240807290604y47edafe1k7cf93831c31b6112@mail.gmail.com> <1217336870.10489.55.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240807290618j67db294w524f3885f0e94c7b@mail.gmail.com> <1217337819.10489.57.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240807290643l4192ca62ia4db9966501caf0b@mail.gmail.com> <1217339170.10489.62.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240807290706h70f89f68xf8fe7e672c0275ad@mail.gmail.com> <1217341293.10489.73.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240807290855p191eebesb1ecf2314031f688@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080729_175540_513294_CB416055) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-3H/2d7gMQb5adEgKyz3L" Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:53:51 +0200 Message-Id: <1217411631.10489.103.camel@johannes.berg> (sfid-20080730_115403_722776_E5C8B817) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-3H/2d7gMQb5adEgKyz3L Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 18:55 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > So why do you need 4 HW queues for QoS, every vendor now implements it > that way today. There is only one medium, you don't put 4 packets on > the air at the same time. The single medium part is true, but the scheduling decision is best made at the air interface, otherwise you'd need to be able to kill the hw fifo when a high-prio frame comes in to preempt other frames. > Now imaging that withing single queue you > have another priority level why it is wrong to add another queue for > it? What makes you think aggregation is another priority level though? I don't see any evidence that it is, and everybody I've asked so far seems to agree with me. johannes --=-3H/2d7gMQb5adEgKyz3L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJIkDosAAoJEKVg1VMiehFY7b4QAKTuoeg88AnNGeBY3h4h5M3h t3hRZfmojViPlY9tiKA8i8inBDTVcYeZgjOrWk9h2N9bSyx1IBItS0jpqPKNMrUh 5SznPLuN+GIHqNk0kdStHf0DhhrLZ4Li5AbJOndE+myb44DmEVWAIwD4htLLdA/l JKa4iy3PGs3IIeocbYWso9Vco+LlAE/oLl7Q8HE/DzE7AUVOKf9T3hKkaiV/VO4r Qpducal0i/hNY1+WE51CEgtZhBN8AsKflPiPSFCfE8LnXPsPuBr0Lg/+Wrhm7dKf SOINWqvQMwoF/7vlo0t8xqDKLqAe1EgrD78M/HzOXNpYYpBEaPN9DhQ/WeUytyKs zBhREOGDMWeBXvczskf8Z96d7lKzONAV/0uOyMG4tdMxNG3Q3BVi1eD3q+uQQPBs MeCQdjsk5jR6Dy5jETRwnGv+bY1kDX8gI2JrgoRNUt1u3+isZHkbRwk5UgRIuUjm 8zbDjmPIV1tORbBHSFVZDbFGFhAqiVzVxklXG9a9miG1G0eHUMXIyic7E0XrSWgQ WBOh1faLcFzYfJYZIktPAVm+1CofO0J82VSnhXQU9VcY/OTAwnFRCtw3NBz26d5x fTGxpLDLOfSdTdYWqDN7DSa2czmPFXVnT3vd/wvKxhkCMKO5/zbJ4iI3JixJFSIP ccaBfhgfWxJ0R+yAvvZ8 =3mm4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-3H/2d7gMQb5adEgKyz3L--