Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:58:21 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Chenchong Qin <qinchenchong@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org" <freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Chenchong's work on net80211_ratectl Message-ID: <CAJ-VmokU=ZXysjZfAJ-REZL7kwg-_Z-LeAKca7AefONW_O1E5A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmokyXwkKLdsJw74bux7G5EJSRvFhugTcLR9BgXfw4ysYRg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAFnsE3dYdPf5yGTFH683Q1Zh0mc-g%2B_YtCTraNNt28z2vBoSKw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmom4sY7jcNwWmJkrDwfWjsok2fk8UEwTi5A=egj1JyerLw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFnsE3cyg=msBfQqqKUMmLABSL=j24VoMBwbBjxQ6b7Dyy7Mqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmo=k8NddAYyAJCkx4eOaA_8XsSxg6uKrdddx%2BgmeT%2BX9KA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFnsE3eaOyRcO3LXSi3L=jbzpyMv5Nt_jRGKt_mmA0WV-EV5vA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmokdxLhK5x6kO=jJzk-dv61EDK-ZgmndOimoyWWf76HiZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonMjR5iVTMVN9532d%2BPqOXWNUoZvxPtQir5h=yGxU-XdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFnsE3d9nG-X2b=z1srKfTtpxC3w5L%2B6Hg3TbOnAQrJN%2Bt19GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmokF6hPtg9FoEdeJXLLaZRNhzd=nr_o6nHE%2BjYiQKTg3zQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFnsE3eMwX-GiRzJt8jk4r9mxwSAQkcrDwk%2BnWVG7q6dabeA3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmo=mzvS0UBC7fGx2t501%2Bfioi4DJcw8qobOpbYOUiraqGg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFnsE3df=1WEuLZh5355v_K2eBgcuBbpoza74Y-5vvNupBz22A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmokyXwkKLdsJw74bux7G5EJSRvFhugTcLR9BgXfw4ysYRg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! So yes, we do need to have a generic way of returning that completion information to the rate control code. I'm all for you churning the rate control API to return a struct ieee80211_rc_info in the complete function and totally just kill arg1/arg2. That forces us to extend ieee80211_rc_info to be "right" for all the drivers. What wifi devices do you have there? It looks like we're almost at the point where we can start converting a few things to use the modified rate control API and modules - notably iwn (which won't use the multi-rate retry stuff to begin with - it works "differently"..) and ath (which will use the multi-rate retry stuff and the sample rate control module.) Thanks! -adrian On 14 August 2013 09:34, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi! > > Just a note - you need to keep the old copyright headers for code you've > just shifted around. > > Eg, the ieee80211_rc_sample.[ch] files. > > > -adrian > > > > On 13 August 2013 05:21, Chenchong Qin <qinchenchong@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> Here is an update of work these days. >> >> I've added a new struct called ieee80211_rc_info to the ratectl API. It >> contains tx completing information, i.e. txcnt, retrycnt, finaltsi, etc, >> which >> can be provided to ratectl algo during the __complete__ period. ir_rates, >> ieee80211_ratectl_rates and ieee80211_ratectl_complete_rcflags are >> adapted to accept the ieee80211_rc_info pointer through which framelen >> and shortpreamble can also be reached. Then I added __complete__ stuff >> and ir_rates to ieee80211_rc_sample. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Chenchong >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Great! >>> >>> So what's the problem with complete? Linux just provides all the >>> information that the NIC supplies - how many attempts were made, how >>> many attempts failed, which rate suceeded, etc. It looks a lot like it >>> was designed around the requirements for the atheros driver (that has >>> the most interesting information available) and other NICs just have >>> to fake it somehow. >>> >>> >>> >>> -adrian >>> >>> On 5 August 2013 08:58, Chenchong Qin <qinchenchong@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Hi! >>> > >>> > Here is my work done these days on porting ath_rate_sample to >>> net80211. It >>> > has not been finished yet. _complete_ and _update_ are to be added. >>> > >>> > _complete_ is really a tricky thing. We have to provide rc algos with >>> rc >>> > information >>> > during the frame completion period. Different rc algos may need >>> different rc >>> > information. What makes things more thornier is that different drivers >>> > provide >>> > different rc information in different ways. So, it seems we need a >>> unified >>> > way to >>> > provide the rc information during completion of a frame. >>> > >>> > I'm browsing mac80211 these days to see what Linux do about >>> _complete_. And, >>> > looking forward to your commets! >>> > >>> > Thanks! >>> > >>> > Chenchong >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Well just remember you can always ask me/us questions! >>> >> >>> >> What's your latest diff against -HEAD? Maybe I can start looking at >>> >> including parts of it in the tree. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -adrian >>> >> >>> >> On 2 August 2013 09:17, Chenchong Qin <qinchenchong@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > Hi! >>> >> > >>> >> > These days, I'm taking a further look at what Linux done for the >>> >> > _completion_ of a >>> >> > frame. Some updates will be posted here later. >>> >> > >>> >> > And, with ir_rates, we can return/fill an rc array rather than just >>> >> > returning the rix. >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks! >>> >> > >>> >> > Chenchong >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Boo! >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Do you have another update? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> -adrian >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On 24 July 2013 06:44, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >> >> > On 24 July 2013 06:38, Chenchong Qin <qinchenchong@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> My pleasure! >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> It's also against HEAD. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Thanks! >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Ok. This is looking great! >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Next - we need to update the rate control API to now populate an >>> rc >>> >> >> > array rather than just returning the rix. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > This is the tricky part - as we're going to have to modify all >>> the >>> >> >> > drivers that use the rate control API to use this. >>> >> >> > Which is fine, as there's only a handful. It's just annoying. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Then we have to provide the rate control information during frame >>> >> >> > _completion_, so the rate control code knows which transmission >>> rates >>> >> >> > succeeded or failed. I'm still not sure what to do about it here. >>> >> >> > Maybe do something like Linux and attach TX rate control and >>> >> >> > completion information as an mbuf tag? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > _Then_ we can start doing interesting thing with it. :) >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > -adrian >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmokU=ZXysjZfAJ-REZL7kwg-_Z-LeAKca7AefONW_O1E5A>