On Mon, 2007-11-06 at 18:00 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > On 6/11/07, jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-11-06 at 17:30 +0300, Cohen, Guy wrote: > > > > > > > > For WiFi devices the HW often implements the scheduling, especially when > > > QoS (WMM/11e/11n) is implemented. There are few traffic queues defined > > > by the specs and the selection of the next queue to transmit a packet > > > from, is determined in real time, just when there is a tx opportunity. > > > This cannot be predicted in advance since it depends on the medium usage > > > of other stations. > > > > WMM is a strict prio mechanism. > > The parametrization very much favors the high prio packets when the > > tx opportunity to send shows up. > > > > This is not true, there is no simple priority order from 1 to 4 , > rather set of parameters that dermises access to medium. You have to > emulate medium behavior to schedule packets in correct order. That's > why this pushed to HW, otherwise nobody would invest money in this > part of silicon :) >
I dont have the specs neither am i arguing the value of having the scheduler in hardware. (I think the over radio contention clearly needs the scheduler in hardware). But i have read a couple of papers on people simulating this in s/ware. And have seen people describe the parametrization that is default, example Slide 43 on: http://madwifi.org/attachment/wiki/ChipsetFeatures/WMM/qos11e.pdf?format=raw seems to indicate the default parameters for the different timers is clearly strictly in favor of you if you have higher prio. If the info quoted is correct, it doesnt change anything i have said so far. i.e it is strict prio scheduling with some statistical chance a low prio packet will make it. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
