Return-path: Received: from nbd.name ([88.198.39.176]:39676 "EHLO ds10.nbd.name" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751847Ab0GZUlR (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:41:17 -0400 Message-ID: <4C4DF2E8.7060502@openwrt.org> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:41:12 +0200 From: Felix Fietkau MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Smedman?= CC: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, linux-wireless Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k: improve aggregation throughput by using only first rate References: <4C4DC98E.6090002@openwrt.org> <4C4DE4F5.3010907@openwrt.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2010-07-26 10:37 PM, Bj?rn Smedman wrote: > 2010/7/26 Felix Fietkau : >> On 2010-07-26 9:23 PM, Bj?rn Smedman wrote: >>> 2010/7/26 Felix Fietkau : >>> * When tx is aggregated most rate control probe frames end up inside >>> aggregates and are never used for probing (effective probe frequency >>> is divided by average aggregate length). >> Nope, a probing frame never ends up inside an aggregate. It's always >> sent out as a single frame, which is why I had to make the decision >> about sending a probing frame more complex in minstrel_ht, compared to >> minstrel - the previous 10% stuff was limiting aggregation size. > > Ok, I must have jumped to conclusions. I looked quickly at the code > and had the impression that it only cared about the RATE_PROBE flag if > it was on the first subframe of the aggregate, and then I compared > debug output from rc and xmit like this: Oh, wait. It seems that you may be right after all. I think I was remembering stuff from the wrong codebase again Well, at least what I described is what I think the code should be doing ;) - Felix