On 03/07/2016 07:15 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote:

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Dave Taht [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

If I can just get a coherent patch set that I can build, I will gladly
join you on the testing ath9k in particular... can probably do ath10k,
too - and do a bit of code review... this week. it's very exciting
watching all this activity...

but I confess that I've totally lost track of what set of trees and
patchwork I should try to pull from. wireless-drivers-next? ath10k?
wireless-next? net-next? toke and I have a ton of x86 platforms
available to test on....

Avery - which patches did you use??? on top of what?

The patch series I'm currently using can be found here:

   git fetch https://gfiber.googlesource.com/vendor/opensource/backports
ath9k_txq+fq_codel

That's again backports-20160122, which comes from linux-next as of
20160122.  You can either build backports against whatever kernel
you're using (probably easiest) or try to use that version of
linux-next, or rebase the patches onto your favourite kernel.

quoted

In terms of "smoothing" codel...

I emphatically do not think codel in it's current form is "ready" for
wireless, at the very least the target should not be much lower than
20ms in your 2 station tests.  There is another bit in codel where the
algo "turns off" with only a single MTU's worth of packets
outstanding, which could get bumped to the ideal size of the
aggregate. "ideal" kind of being a variable based on a ton of other
factors...

Yeah, I figured that sort of thing would come up.  I'm feeling forward
progress just by finally seeing the buggy oscillations finally happen,
though. :)

quoted

the underlying code needs to be striving successfully for per-station
airtime fairness for this to work at all, and the driver/card
interface nearly as tight as BQL is for the fq portion to behave
sanely. I'd configure codel at a higher target and try to observe what
is going on at the fq level til that got saner.

That seems like two good goals.  So Emmanuel's BQL-like thing seems
like we'll need it soon.

Well... I am going to do that for station only, and only for iwlwifi.
I haven't had a chance to work on that since then :( but I hope to get 
back to it. I also need to check what happens in multiple channels 
scenarios (in which there is inherent latency).
AP and stations have different challenges.

As for per-station airtime fairness, what's a good approximation of
that?  Perhaps round-robin between stations, one aggregate per turn,
where each aggregate has a maximum allowed latency?  I don't know how
the current code works, but it's probably almost like that, as long as
we only put one aggregate's worth of stuff into each hwq, which I
guess is what the BQL-like thing will do.

So if I understand correctly, what we need is, in the following order:
1) Disable fq_codel for now, and get BQL-like thing working in ath9k
(and ensure we're getting airtime fairness even without fq_codel);
2) Re-enable fq_codel and increase fq_codel's target up to 20ms for now;
3) Tweak fq_codel's "turn off" size to be larger (how important is this?)

Is that right?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html