From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:48066 "EHLO mail-yw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751444Ab0H0Psp (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:48:45 -0400 Received: by ywh1 with SMTP id 1so848046ywh.19 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:48:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1282923799.4377.14.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <1282887527-23259-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <20100827090655.GA15873@jm.kir.nu> <1282923444.4377.13.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1282923799.4377.14.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:48:24 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFT] mac80211: fix broadcast/multicast data drop on scan To: Johannes Berg Cc: Jouni Malinen , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Kalle Valo , Amod Bodas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 08:40 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Johannes Berg >> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 08:28 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> > >> >> Indeed... I do not see where we keep track of the DTIM count and was >> >> afraid this was not sufficient. I had not thought about the last >> >> received multicast / broadcast frame, that will require some more >> >> work. But I also noticed even ieee80211_recalc_ps() does not take this >> >> into account when computing the max_sleep_period ieee80211_enable_ps() >> >> for dynamic power save, it only considers the DTIM period. We send the >> >> nullfunc frame for dynamic power save and it does not seem we take >> >> into consideration the DTIM count and last RX's broadcast / multicast >> >> data prior to sending the nullfunc to go into power save. So it seems >> >> to me dynamic power save would also loses broadcast / multicast data >> >> frames. >> > >> > No, the max sleep period is just a helper variable for device >> > implementation of sleep -- the actual alignment of it with DTIM beacons >> > etc. has to be done by the device. Therefore, it isn't so :-) >> >> I noticed the comment on the PS documentation that the reason for this >> is that mac80211 is too slow, is that right? > > Well, there's no way we can reliably wake up exactly before a beacon by > implementing that in software, hard real-time hasn't been achieved in > Linux yet :-) Keyword here is *exactly*. I don't want to wake up *exactly* at DTIM, only ensure we don't sleep during it and the send buffered frames and multicast traffic data. Why can we not implement this on mac80211? Luis