[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+mtBx-j_+mrNpntR7CfYOromDnM-ZGzvebpUCjC8Qf14X6u9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:34:20 -0700
From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To: Jim Gettys <jg@...edesktop.org>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>,
Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew McGregor <andrewmcgr@...il.com>,
Matt Smith <smithm@....qualcomm.com>,
Kevin Hayes <hayes@....qualcomm.com>,
Derek Smithies <derek@...ranet.co.nz>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BQL crap and wireless
> Computing the buffering in bytes is better than in packets; but since on
> wireless multicast/broadcast is transmitted at a radically different
> rate than other packets, I expect something based on time is really the
> long term solution; and only the driver has any idea how long a packet
> of a given flavour will likely take to transmit.
The generalization of BQL would be to set the queue limit in terms of
a cost function implemented by the driver. The cost function would
most likely be an estimate of time to transmit a packet. So C(P)
could represent cost of a packet, sum(C(P) for P queued) is aggregate
cost of queue packets, and queue limit is the maximum cost sum. For
wired Ethernet, number of bytes in packet might be a reasonable
function (although framing cost could be included, but I'm not sure
that would make a material difference). For wireless, maybe the
function could be more complex possibly taking multicast, previous
history of transmission times, or other arbitrary characteristics of
the packet into account...
I can post a new patch with this generalization if this is interesting.
Tom
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists