[srslte-users] A question about the code scheduler_metric.cc

[Francisco Paisana]

Are you just altering the scheduling algorithm, aka dl_metric_rr? If so,
one option would be to create a container (e.g. map) with the "history" of
the UE allocations, in particular, the last TTI when the UE was allocated.
Then if the difference between the current TTI and last TTI is lower than a
certain threshold, you don't allocate the UE.

However, take into account that you can't delay a UE allocation for too
long. SRB transmissions are critical for the whole UE state machine. If you
delay a UE transmission too much (several seconds), the eNB may decide to
release the UE due to inactivity.

Kind Regards,
Francisco


On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 1:25 PM Michael Seguin <mpseguin at buffalo.edu> wrote:

> Hello Francisco,
>
> Is there any function that could say could stop a ue from being scheduled
> at all?
>
> For example, I want to hold a UE from being scheduled at all to build up
> the buffer state.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Seguin
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2021, 8:16 AM Francisco Paisana <
> francisco.paisana at softwareradiosystems.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Michael,
>>
>> That's the general idea of the priority_idx. However, it is not
>> guaranteed that a UE gets allocated in its priority "turn". For instance,
>> if, for priority idx = 0, UE 0 doesn't have any data to transmit, then the
>> scheduler will try to allocate the UE 1 instead. Furthermore, the scheduler
>> might allocate multiple UEs in the same TTI, if a given UE allocation
>> didn't fill the whole bandwidth.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Francisco
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 8:56 AM Michael Seguin <mpseguin at buffalo.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello srsLTE users,
>>>
>>> In the metric_scheduler.cc in the folder srsenb/src/stack/mac
>>>
>>> line 51 has a priority_idx. If that was changed to randomly pick a value
>>> would that change the user that gets allocated ? Instead of doing it based
>>> on TTI.
>>>
>>> Say we have two UEs, a base station, and an EPC.
>>> Priority_idx would be
>>> 0 then 1 then 2 then 0 then 1 then 2
>>>
>>> If I changed it to
>>> 2 then 1 then 0 then 2 then 1 then 2 then 1 then 1 then 0
>>>
>>> Would that change the order in which the UEs get allocated ?
>>>
>>> Thanks for all the help, very new to all this!
>>>
>>> [image: image.png]
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
>>> www.avast.com
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>>> <#m_-1747207416978121560_m_-726195664335574245_m_-5946548363992850858_m_-1162550078035873520_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> srslte-users mailing list
>>> srslte-users at lists.softwareradiosystems.com
>>> http://www.softwareradiosystems.com/mailman/listinfo/srslte-users
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.srsran.com/pipermail/srsran-users/attachments/20210513/a2ee70c1/attachment.htm>