On Wednesday 23 August 2006 22:32, Simon Barber wrote: > Right - and what I'm proposing is that we don't just count the number of > frames in the ring - but also count the amount of frame time the ring > takes too. This way if there are a number of large, slow frames we can > stop adding more frames into the ring well before we reach the limit on > the number of frames.
Ah, now I understand what you are trying to explain. :) But why do we actually _want_ to stop a DMA ring, if it's not full (has free descriptors)? I can't see any benefit on it. Adding frames to the ring is done on the fly without stopping or otherwise interferring with any running transmissions queued earlier. I would say we don't care about the time it takes for the ring to go into idle on the d80211 level. I think the only thing we care at d80211 level is: Can we queue another frame? We have that logic. If a queue is not stopped, we can queue another frame. Or do you want to make the qdisc intelligent? Say, it drops a few beacons, if there are already packets queued for the next 300ms, for example. Do you want to optimize latency of payload data by dropping low-priority packets while the queue is heavily loaded? I can't see another usage for time based DMA ring accounting in d80211, yet. -- Greetings Michael. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
