netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/9] bql: Byte Queue Limits

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+mtBx8mb0pAqVH19WK=e9LuLeyvnNTybROOURD2Rg6UtYe+bw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:29:45 -0700
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	jhs@...atatu.com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/9] bql: Byte Queue Limits

> Well, the wireless case is curious, and has a whole bunch of corner
> cases, since it's not necessarily PtP, it can be PtMP!
>
> But considering the most basic case of us being a client connecting to
> an AP first: yes, the bandwidth will change dynamically, I don't know
> what impact this has on BQL, Tom, maybe you can think about this a bit?
>
BQL is dynamic, and will increase the queue limit more aggressively
than decrease it.  So for instance, we can track the largest queue
needed over 30 seconds which should be stable in the presence even in
the presence of fluctuating bandwidth.  The thing that worries me is
rather the HW queues conform to the queue characteristics described in
the patch.  If transmit completions are random and not regular, BQL
probably can't function well.

If you'd like to bring this up on some wireless devices that would be
great, I don't have easy access to any right now, but I can try to
help otherwise.


> The second big challenge in wireless is the PtMP case: if we're acting
> as an AP, then we typically have four queues for any number of remote
> endpoints with varying bandwidth. I haven't found a good way to handle
> this, we can't have hardware queues per station (most HW is simply not
> capable of that many queues) but technically we would want to make the
> queue limits depend on the peer...
>
> Since I just returned from vacation I have tons of email to dig through
> I'll have to keep this short for now, but I'm definitely interested.
>
> johannes
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html