Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]:53415 "EHLO mail-wg0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750834Ab3KTL0L (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:26:11 -0500 Received: by mail-wg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id y10so8984136wgg.33 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 03:26:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:25:35 +0100 From: Karl Beldan To: Johannes Berg Cc: Blaise Gassend , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Drula , Alap Modi Subject: Re: QoS Data packets causing massive packet loss in ieee80211_sta_manage_reorder_buf. Message-ID: <20131120112535.GC6993@magnum.frso.rivierawaves.com> (sfid-20131120_122615_110981_E5FDB897) References: <1384937328.14295.3.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <20131120110157.GA6993@magnum.frso.rivierawaves.com> <1384945569.14295.5.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <20131120111654.GB6993@magnum.frso.rivierawaves.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <20131120111654.GB6993@magnum.frso.rivierawaves.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:16:54PM +0100, Karl Beldan wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:06:09PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 12:01 +0100, Karl Beldan wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 02:15:27AM -0800, Blaise Gassend wrote: > > > > Hi Johannes, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the quick reply! > > > > > > > > > I think we just need to skip reorder processing for multicast, since > > > > > they won't be aggregated anyway? > > > > > > > > > > http://p.sipsolutions.net/d00799dd2201676a.txt > > > > > > > > This patch works like a charm for my current predicament. But is it > > > > actually written somewhere that multicast packets can't be aggregated? > > > > I can't find any place that says they can't, but I'm not authoritative > > > > by any means. > > > > > > > There's a chapter "A-MPDU aggregation of group addressed data frames" in > > > the specs, however I haven't seen this yet. > > > > Even then though, I don't think there would be any block-ack session, > > and thus you wouldn't be able to use the reorder buffer anyway, right? > > > I think so. > Except maybe for 802.11aa GCR (groupcast with retries) .. Karl