Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
  1. Nov 10, 2015
    • Cedric Roux's avatar
      Give a better name to this array. · 68249569
      Cedric Roux authored
      68249569
    • Cedric Roux's avatar
      This is a very basic fix, more work is needed. · f2b3597b
      Cedric Roux authored
      The problem seems that we reuse HARQ processes too early.
      For example, at subframe 0 we allocate PID 0. At subframe 4
      we receive an ACK. At subframe 5 we may well reallocate this
      PID. It seems category 3 UEs don't like that. They expect
      some delay. How much? I don't know. 8 maybe, as for UL.
      
      This commit forces allocation of HARQ PID:
        0 on subframe 1,
        1 on subframe 2,
        2 on subframe 3,
        3 on subframe 4,
        4 on subframe 6,
        5 on subframe 7,
        6 on subframe 8,
        7 on subframe 9.
      
      We don't use subframes 0 and 5 (for initial transmission at
      least). (Current develop branch doesn't either I think.)
      
      This is not a good solution, just a quick and dirty one. With this
      commit I can achieve 12Mbps with iperf UDP on a 5MHz band 7 carrier
      with a cat3 UE. And more than 11Mbps with iperf TCP. And a bad
      radio link.
      
      We may want to implement some sort of free-list and take the
      oldest PID in there, if it is older than let's say 8 subframes
      (that is: the last transmission with this pid was done more
      than 8 subframes ealier). We may well have no free PID if a
      lot of retransmissions are done.
      f2b3597b
  2. Oct 28, 2015
  3. Oct 27, 2015
  4. Oct 26, 2015
  5. Oct 21, 2015
  6. Oct 20, 2015
  7. Oct 18, 2015
  8. Oct 15, 2015
  9. Oct 13, 2015
  10. Oct 12, 2015
  11. Oct 09, 2015
Loading