Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:49:46 +0100 From: Monthadar Al Jaberi <monthadar@gmail.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] serialising net80211 TX Message-ID: <CA%2BsBSoJ1AFL32Rrgw5kJT6Foxhbb4fVLObJg5md_LosPr129rw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmonQOmScK7LTjJ6kgcgyh2PZPRa1AVEPyJcSens6G1jBoA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-VmonS0cds9nCFYxc_nZuDRL93=2_4T2B4tUzPuGC3Bhz2FA@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BsBSo%2BUu1KSADeDgrfyM_wGiu3UUB%2BHUewFVj=OGvEnoVNuDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonQOmScK7LTjJ6kgcgyh2PZPRa1AVEPyJcSens6G1jBoA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 14 February 2013 11:50, Monthadar Al Jaberi <monthadar@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Seems like the best architectural wise, first-in first out. I am just >> thinking of one can extend this too have like more than one queue, >> more like the QoS concept, and each packet have a time-stamp assigned >> to it.Would that help? > > Well, the queue thing is a bit orthogonal. Yes, we could run multiple > queues and multiple kernel threads. But what would multiple kernel > threads get us? I was thinking one kernel thread. This thread have some headroom to take from the higher priority queue if the frame on the other queue is not old "enough". > > > > Adrian -- Monthadar Al Jaberi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BsBSoJ1AFL32Rrgw5kJT6Foxhbb4fVLObJg5md_LosPr129rw>