Return-path: Received: from mail-yi0-f46.google.com ([209.85.218.46]:51614 "EHLO mail-yi0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751794Ab1I0C0V (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:26:21 -0400 Received: by yib18 with SMTP id 18so4803478yib.19 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:26:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20110922154726.521122680@sipsolutions.net> <20110922154849.369194760@sipsolutions.net> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:26:21 +0800 Message-ID: (sfid-20110927_042625_121516_7E40FF2F) Subject: Re: [RFC 03/15] mac80211: also expire filtered frames From: Adrian Chadd To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 27 September 2011 06:30, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > No particular comments on the code yet but latency issues has got me > thinking about the filtered frames stuff and if we really need it. How > much benefit does keeping these frames give us instead of just > dropping them? Do you guys keep statistics about this sort of thing? My macbook pro ends up causing my FreeBSD AP to miss TX'ing a lot of frames, even if it's close by. This only occurs when it's on battery power. I have a feeling it's going to be doing aggressiveish power saving stuff and this'll be fixed by me porting over and tidying up the filtered frames support. Adrian