On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 1 August 2016 at 12:04, Dave Taht wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>>> On 7 July 2016 at 19:30, Valo, Kalle
On 1 August 2016 at 12:04, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>> On 7 July 2016 at 19:30, Valo, Kalle wrote:
>>> Michal Kazior writes:
>>>
Ideally
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 7 July 2016 at 19:30, Valo, Kalle wrote:
>> Michal Kazior writes:
>>
>>> Ideally wake_tx_queue should be used regardless as
>>> it is a requirement for reducing
On 7 July 2016 at 19:30, Valo, Kalle wrote:
> Michal Kazior writes:
>
>> Ideally wake_tx_queue should be used regardless as
>> it is a requirement for reducing bufferbloat and
>> implementing airtime fairness in the future.
>>
>> However some
Michal Kazior writes:
> Ideally wake_tx_queue should be used regardless as
> it is a requirement for reducing bufferbloat and
> implementing airtime fairness in the future.
>
> However some setups (typically low-end platforms
> hosting QCA988X) suffer performance
Ideally wake_tx_queue should be used regardless as
it is a requirement for reducing bufferbloat and
implementing airtime fairness in the future.
However some setups (typically low-end platforms
hosting QCA988X) suffer performance regressions
with the current wake_tx_queue implementation.