On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Felix Fietkau <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2014-04-19 05:26, Dave Taht wrote: >> Could part of it be as simple as not checking for '<=' but only < in >> txq_max_pending below? > I don't see how that would make any meaningful difference in practice.
Didn't think it would, still thought <= was more correct. > By the way, did you test my patch? It is in the as yet untested 3.10.36-6 build, along with resetting qlen down to 12 again to try to trigger the bug sooner. http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.10.36-6/ > >> in ath_tx_start: >> >> ath_txq_lock(sc, txq); >> if (txq == sc->tx.txq_map[q] && >> ++txq->pending_frames > sc->tx.txq_max_pending[q] && >> !txq->stopped) { >> ieee80211_stop_queue(sc->hw, q); >> txq->stopped = true; >> } >> >> in ath_txq_skb_done: >> >> if (txq->stopped && >> txq->pending_frames < sc->tx.txq_max_pending[q]) { >> ieee80211_wake_queue(sc->hw, q); >> txq->stopped = false; >> } >> >> > -- Dave Täht NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
