From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230]:26916 "EHLO
	mgw-mx03.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753175Ab0DVI6L (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:58:11 -0400
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv3 1/2] mac80211: Determine dynamic PS timeout based
 on ps-qos network latency
From: Juuso Oikarinen <juuso.oikarinen@nokia.com>
To: ext Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1271925939.3605.7.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
References: <1271409274-17162-1-git-send-email-juuso.oikarinen@nokia.com>
	 <1271409274-17162-2-git-send-email-juuso.oikarinen@nokia.com>
	 <1271688177.23671.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
	 <1271740120.6205.5733.camel@wimaxnb.nmp.nokia.com>
	 <1271925939.3605.7.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:55:47 +0300
Message-ID: <1271926547.6205.8870.camel@wimaxnb.nmp.nokia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 10:45 +0200, ext Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 08:08 +0300, Juuso Oikarinen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 16:42 +0200, ext Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 12:14 +0300, Juuso Oikarinen wrote:
> > > > Determine the dynamic PS timeout based on the configured ps-qos network
> > > > latency. For backwards wext compatibility, allow the dynamic PS timeout
> > > > configured by the cfg80211 to overrule the automatically determined value.
> > > 
> > > This seems OK, but I fear that you'll write applications setting the
> > > pm_qos network latency just to affect this parameter?
> > > 
> > 
> > Well you have to see where I'm coming from - I must come up with a way
> > to tune the dynamic ps timeout value from user-space in a way that is
> > agreeable with others, and that is somewhat future-proof.
> 
> Well I personally think that's your first mistake ;)
> 
> Why does userspace care about the dynamic PS timeout value to start
> with? All it should care about is the latency with which it can react to
> network packets, no?
> 
> > That said, obviously the network latency should be tuned as, well, the
> > expected network latency. In this phase though, there are no other
> > parameters affected by the network latency, so the result is quite
> > obvious - your fear will realise itself ;)
> 
> But there are, like the max sleep period in # of beacons.

Yeah, okay there is. You probably noticed I posted a version of the
patches with "saner" latency-values for this reason.

I think there is something fishy in the max-sleep-period implementation.
I don't yet understand it fully, but it seems to me the host is trying
to set up it's own dtim interval, regardless of what the AP is
configured with. It seems to me that this could lead to loss of
broadcast/multicast frames, if the sta is not waking up a AP dtim
beacons, but instead has its own cycle. But I have to look into this
deeper at some point, so let's not get caught in this now.

-Juuso

> johannes
>