From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5926EC2BA83 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:41:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6E021741 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:41:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="kI8cZd0U" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727071AbgBGUlY (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Feb 2020 15:41:24 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f195.google.com ([209.85.222.195]:37110 "EHLO mail-qk1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726947AbgBGUlY (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Feb 2020 15:41:24 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f195.google.com with SMTP id c188so399318qkg.4 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 12:41:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+m+sFHC1novcEDkb+8bqObLDQeqxE8eT0EVOWGfUp4c=; b=kI8cZd0UJzGOAdb/iD93R4UM9gL0YKays2igLWY5Z0LnAscIm/HOGXKNTvTP8Xl29N f9IqALs6vH7D+kOH66lBrZLtGh3xvHYphEar+OXOUZjSRhovSuw0MYSsSb6lKxYXPdCi zgt2kTn87IljtryZCb6rQTcF11U9l6i6cmkK0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+m+sFHC1novcEDkb+8bqObLDQeqxE8eT0EVOWGfUp4c=; b=VyorfTIJ8xHP9lS3dhBznJ8RAYxtnDdZbrhvXVtY0Sw8s+PGXWgq/hP4DwDgZfw+kX Pgre7wx2TEUIyggAo/UxQlTMsq2Gh1fj1MXBH0r2xP7sm0QfZGXOcDLC2O3jQwHwDwlv EKT+Wd9U4dKcilcmRt/h+lX/lNVhR/4/FEW6hZW4QmV6mwyLKdHOqMu/R1ERxIRUB3i0 zuoKDKqb+NGUQFnn3mwIMUnhbqXef3xvjvWrxuk/dZMXm0NrMSMojpe6s9+7wUSGEw9E NFfGvebU/YJorOUNJR4jv75okMyS/C3iVDPgGuOGQXJOCrE3LGxjYVHSpFgIk36+a6ne VY+w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUbEVDHTCBRWmROoAa3Duub+9EH/yLaF9oQ+aGod4eWt73WOR3Z eq+cTnYFL4RNds/hn1qmib8vh36+lgY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy5+Fb2aSWthqGdwhZ/fLZ9vsu3kqEcnXlhzv6jmZ+6j1MpGMl0A9JeR3AvxqxAYm667I8BrQ== X-Received: by 2002:a37:356:: with SMTP id 83mr703548qkd.409.1581108082740; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 12:41:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt1-f180.google.com (mail-qt1-f180.google.com. [209.85.160.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c79sm1922559qkg.12.2020.02.07.12.41.21 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Feb 2020 12:41:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-f180.google.com with SMTP id w8so388675qts.11 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 12:41:21 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1851:: with SMTP id n17mr163276qtk.305.1581108080853; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 12:41:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200204120614.28861-1-yhchuang@realtek.com> In-Reply-To: From: Brian Norris Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 12:41:09 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtw88: disable TX-AMSDU on 2.4G band To: Justin Capella Cc: Chris Chiu , Tony Chuang , Kalle Valo , linux-wireless Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 11:41 AM Justin Capella wrote: > Instead of permanently disabling could a module parameter or other > configurable be used? I appreciate the performance enhancements but > don't like the idea of disabling functionality It feels like you have that backwards: Tony is claiming that (a) TX AMSDU does not give any performance benefit on 2.4GHz (b) TX AMSDU gives a severe performance degradation on 2.4GHz with certain APs That sounds like a case where the feature should be disabled by default. (A separate module parameter to re-enable it experimentally sounds like it could be OK, although it's not likely I would use it or recommend doing so. But that doesn't sound like what you're suggesting.) I say "claiming" above, but I have fielded evidence for (b) at least. I don't know much about (a), but limited tests haven't showed any real loss for me. HTH, Brian