All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
To: Kang Yang <quic_kangyang@quicinc.com>
Cc: <ath11k@lists.infradead.org>,  <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] wifi: ath11k: move update channel list to worker for wait flag
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:07:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y10lngf1.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241129070714.226-3-quic_kangyang@quicinc.com> (Kang Yang's message of "Fri, 29 Nov 2024 15:07:14 +0800")

Kang Yang <quic_kangyang@quicinc.com> writes:

> From: Wen Gong <quic_wgong@quicinc.com>
>
> When wait flag is set for ath11k_reg_update_chan_list(), it will wait
> the completion of 11d/hw scan if 11d/hw scan is running.
>
> With the previous patch "wifi: ath11k: move update channel list from
> update reg worker to reg notifier", ath11k_reg_update_chan_list() will
> be called when reg_work is running. The global lock rtnl_lock will be
> held by reg_work in the meantime. If the wait_for_completion_timeout()
> is called due to 11d/hw scan is running, the occupation time of
> rtnl_lock will increase. This will increase blocking time for other
> threads if they want to use rtnl_lock.
>
> Move update channel list operation in ath11k_reg_update_chan_list() to
> a new worker, then the wait of completion of 11d/hw scan will not
> happen in reg_work and not increase the occupation time of the rtnl_lock.
>
> Tested-on: WCN6855 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.HSP.1.1-03125-QCAHSPSWPL_V1_V2_SILICONZ_LITE-3
>
> Signed-off-by: Wen Gong <quic_wgong@quicinc.com>
> Co-developed-by: Kang Yang <quic_kangyang@quicinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kang Yang <quic_kangyang@quicinc.com>

Same here, I think the commit message should be more or less rewritten.

> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h
> @@ -743,6 +743,10 @@ struct ath11k {
>  	struct completion bss_survey_done;
>  
>  	struct work_struct regd_update_work;
> +	struct work_struct channel_update_work;
> +	struct list_head channel_update_queue;
> +	/* protects channel_update_queue data */
> +	spinlock_t channel_update_lock;

Do you really need a new lock? Why not use data_lock?

> @@ -6318,6 +6320,15 @@ static void ath11k_mac_op_stop(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, bool suspend)
>  	}
>  	spin_unlock_bh(&ar->data_lock);
>  
> +	spin_lock_bh(&ar->channel_update_lock);

Empty line here, please.

> +	while ((params = list_first_entry_or_null(&ar->channel_update_queue,
> +						  struct scan_chan_list_params,
> +						  list))) {
> +		list_del(&params->list);
> +		kfree(params);
> +	}

Here also empty line.

> +	spin_unlock_bh(&ar->channel_update_lock);
> +
>  	rcu_assign_pointer(ar->ab->pdevs_active[ar->pdev_idx], NULL);
>  
>  	synchronize_rcu();

[...]

> +void ath11k_regd_update_chan_list_work(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> +	struct ath11k *ar = container_of(work, struct ath11k,
> +					 channel_update_work);
> +	struct scan_chan_list_params *params;
> +	struct list_head local_update_list;
> +	int left;
> +
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&local_update_list);
> +
> +	spin_lock_bh(&ar->channel_update_lock);
> +	while ((params = list_first_entry_or_null(&ar->channel_update_queue,
> +						  struct scan_chan_list_params,
> +						  list))) {
> +		list_del(&params->list);
> +		list_add_tail(&params->list, &local_update_list);
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&ar->channel_update_lock);

What about list_splice_tail_init() or similar?

> +
> +	while ((params = list_first_entry_or_null(&local_update_list,
> +						  struct scan_chan_list_params,
> +						  list))) {
> +		if (ar->state_11d != ATH11K_11D_IDLE) {
> +			left = wait_for_completion_timeout(&ar->completed_11d_scan,
> +							   ATH11K_SCAN_TIMEOUT_HZ);
> +			if (!left) {
> +				ath11k_dbg(ar->ab, ATH11K_DBG_REG,
> +					   "failed to receive 11d scan complete: timed out\n");
> +				ar->state_11d = ATH11K_11D_IDLE;
> +			}

Empty line here.

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

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


  reply	other threads:[~2024-12-12 14:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-11-29  7:07 [PATCH v3 0/2] wifi: ath11k: fix data out of sync for channel list for reg update Kang Yang
2024-11-29  7:07 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] wifi: ath11k: move update channel list from update reg worker to reg notifier Kang Yang
2024-12-12 14:02   ` Kalle Valo
2024-11-29  7:07 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] wifi: ath11k: move update channel list to worker for wait flag Kang Yang
2024-12-12 14:07   ` Kalle Valo [this message]
2024-12-13  6:46     ` Kang Yang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87y10lngf1.fsf@kernel.org \
    --to=kvalo@kernel.org \
    --cc=ath11k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quic_kangyang@quicinc.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.