Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.237]:48810 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752445AbYGaSO6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:14:58 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so673556rvb.1 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1ba2fa240807311114t3e1b4fb3oe6643fbe28f2c2ac@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080731_201504_556308_8896C569) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:14:57 +0300 From: "Tomas Winkler" To: "Johannes Berg" Subject: Re: iwlwifi aggregation info Cc: Friedrich.Beckmann@infineon.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, j@w1.fi In-Reply-To: <1217509511.10489.140.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <1217331138.10489.24.camel@johannes.berg> <1217411631.10489.103.camel@johannes.berg> <8469FC7DDCBE054D9653D8506E1FF0F001F1E7B606@mucse406.eu.infineon.com> <1217423948.10489.121.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240807300645j654a82b4rb813b71681dfab71@mail.gmail.com> <1217425854.10489.125.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240807300659p4d743f31se265f550a2da0dd1@mail.gmail.com> <1217431179.10489.134.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240807300908x5489e3f8g54ff83e7e5912c0b@mail.gmail.com> <1217509511.10489.140.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 19:08 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > >> > Can you explain how starvation happens? In what scenarios? With or >> > without aggregation? >> >> for (queue = 0; queue < QD_NUM(hw); queue++) >> >> This always starts 0 prioritize dequeue the first frame. But what we >> need is RR and let HW to prioritize the transmission according AC > > That's from the old code not having real MQ though, right? I'm totally > not concerned about that. Correct. The bottom line is that correct behavior MQ would be shift scheduling decision to the HW. Tomas