From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: leiwa@codeaurora.org
Cc: ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix different tx duration output
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:07:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <875zrbrb1q.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <298a645b17aac0f5c466f011225533b0@codeaurora.org>
leiwa@codeaurora.org writes:
> On 2019-04-17 17:26, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Lei Wang <leiwa@codeaurora.org> writes:
>>
>>> TX duration output of tx_stats in debugfs and station dump had big
>>> difference because they got tx duration value from different statistic
>>> data. We should use the same statistic data.
>>
>> So are you sure you picked the most accurate one of the two? :)
>>
>> -Toke
>
> Hi Toke,
>
> Yes.
> Now for ath10k, there are two ways to get tx duration output.
> One is got from tx_stats in debugfs reported by firmware. It is a total
> value including all the frames which created by host and firmware sent
> to the peer.
> And the second is calculated from
> ath10k_htt_rx_tx_compl_ind()-->ieee80211_sta_register_airtime(), here
> the tx duration just includes the data frames sent from host to the
> peer.
So the difference is that the former includes control frames as well? Is
that the only difference? And what exactly is a "big difference" (from
the commit message)?
> So the first value is preferable for station dump.
Hmm, I'm not sure if I agree with this. I specifically added the
tx_duration to the station dump to be able to get the values used by the
airtime scheduler. This breaks with this patch.
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-18 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-17 8:17 [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix different tx duration output Lei Wang
2019-04-17 9:26 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-04-18 7:26 ` leiwa
2019-04-18 8:07 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2019-05-07 11:14 ` leiwa
2019-05-07 11:43 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-05-07 14:05 ` Kalle Valo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=875zrbrb1q.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=leiwa@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).