On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 14:44 +0100, Michal Kazior wrote: > I do get your point. But 1.5ms is really tough on Wi-Fi. > > Just look at this: > > ; ping 192.168.1.2 -c 3 > PING 192.168.1.2 (192.168.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.83 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2.02 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.98 ms
Thats a different point. I dont care about rtt but TX completions. (usually much much lower than rtt) I can have a 4 usec delay from the moment a NIC submits a packet to the wire and I get TX completion IRQ, free the packet. Yet the pong reply can come 100 ms later. It does not mean the 4 usec delay is a problem. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
