Yibo Zhao <yi...@codeaurora.org> writes: > On 2019-09-24 15:26, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >>>> Hmm, yeah, I guess we could end up with a loop like that as well. >>>> Keeping the schedule_round would be a way to fix it, but I'm not sure >>>> we >>>> should just skip that station; maybe we should just end the round >>>> instead? >>> I am not sure. I believe, in some cases, the rest of the nodes which >>> could be most of the nodes in the tree will not have the chance to be >>> scheduled in this round. >> >> My guess would be that it doesn't really matter, because in most cases >> each schedule round will only actually end up queueing packets from one >> or two stations; as the driver will pull multiple packets from that one >> station which will often fill up the firmware queues (especially once >> we >> start throttling that with the AQL stuff). >> >> So I guess we can just skip TXQs that we've already seen this >> scheduling >> round, and let the v_t compare determine transmit eligibility :) > > I am a little confused. So do you mean it is fine for you to skip the > TXQs we met in this round before and continue the loop until the end or > vt comparison failure?
Yeah. In most cases it won't make any difference; but it'll make sure we visit all eligible TXQs in all cases, so we might as well do that if we're tracking the scheduling round anyway. -Toke
