From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.63.242]:38054 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753718AbeE1IG1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2018 04:06:27 -0400 Message-ID: <1527494784.8221.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20180528_100632_326702_A962B51A) Subject: Re: [RFC] mac80211: add stop/start logic for software TXQs From: Johannes Berg To: Manikanta Pubbisetty Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 10:06:24 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1526672192-3873-1-git-send-email-mpubbise@codeaurora.org> <1527068760.3759.13.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2018-05-28 at 12:49 +0530, Manikanta Pubbisetty wrote: > > > > This doesn't seem right, all the logic that clears the TXQ_STOP etc. > > still needs to be invoked, otherwise your TXQ will get stuck completely > > since you'll never run this code again. > > If the queues are blocked more than the block ack timeout then the > traffic should be sent only in the next BA session. > I am not really sure whether the queues will be blocked more than the > block ack timeout value unless the queues are stopped because of > multiple reasons. > In any case, traffic will be pushed out in subsequent BA sessions, no? I'm not really sure what you're saying, but it sounds almost like you're confusing a "BA session" with a single A-MPDU? The session will get stuck if you do the code this way, I think. > > Also, you have the same problem as above - you never re-run this code so > > you'd get stuck completely. > > I didn't get your point here. By the time the queues gets started again, > there could be possibility that the station might have been back to > sleep. In this case, it is better not to send the traffic, no? > Anyways, station would receive the traffic in the next cycle when it is > out of sleep. Considering codel logic, there could be frame drops > though; maybe I am missing something? But this is still the old code before cycling, so you never get here during the TX cycle you're thinking of? johannes