Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] wifi: ath12k: Introduce the container for mac80211 hw

[Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>]

Karthikeyan Periyasamy <quic_periyasa@quicinc.com> writes:

>>>   static void ath12k_mac_op_cancel_hw_scan(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
>>>   					 struct ieee80211_vif *vif)
>>>   {
>>> -	struct ath12k *ar = hw->priv;
>>> +	struct ath12k_hw *ah = ath12k_hw_to_ah(hw);
>>> +	struct ath12k *ar;
>>> +
>>> +	mutex_lock(&ah->conf_mutex);
>>> +
>>> +	ar = ath12k_ah_to_ar(ah);
>>>     	mutex_lock(&ar->conf_mutex);
>>>   	ath12k_scan_abort(ar);
>>>   	mutex_unlock(&ar->conf_mutex);
>>>   +	mutex_unlock(&ah->conf_mutex);
>>> +
>>>   	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&ar->scan.timeout);
>>>   }
>>
>> Do we really need two mutexes? I don't see any analysis about that. And
>> even if we do, I feel that it should be added in a separate patch.
>
> Yes, ah->conf_mutex protect the concurrent mac80211 operation. But
> there is other places like radio/link specific synchronous operation
> (ie MGMT tx wait for the vdev deletion) is needed. To fulfill this
> need, we also need radio/link specific (ar) mutex instead of all link
> (ah) mutex for efficient lock/unlock.

Are there any numbers to show the inefficiency? Anyway, I consider
adding new mutexes as an optimisation which could be done in a separate
patch with proper analysis.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches