From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hAvsa-000420-Ff for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 01 Apr 2019 12:17:33 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 20:17:28 +0800 From: Yibo Zhao Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: remove iteration in wake_tx_queue In-Reply-To: References: <20190327162906.6010-1-erik.stromdahl@gmail.com> Message-ID: <07f403379ca955f2867b29d8f6a2e457@codeaurora.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Erik Stromdahl Cc: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org, kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org, Peter Oh On 2019-03-29 15:47, Erik Stromdahl wrote: > On 3/27/19 6:49 PM, Peter Oh wrote: >> >> >> On 03/27/2019 09:29 AM, Erik Stromdahl wrote: >>> Iterating the TX queue and thereby dequeuing all available packets in >>> the >>> queue could result in performance penalties on some SMP systems. >>> >> Please share the test results and numbers you've run to help others >> thoughts. >> > > I haven't run any tests with ath10k PCIe, but Yibo Zhao had noticed a > 10% > degradation without this patch. > > Yibo: > Can you provide iperf results etc. that shows the performance gain? My tests are based on ixchariot with cabled setup(two-core AP system). WDS mode--10% deviation: With previous change: UDP DL-1246 Mbps W/O previous change: UDP DL-987 Mbps Normal mode: With previous change: UDP DL-1380 Mbps W/O previous change: UDP DL-1310 Mbps Also attached the aqm status. With previous change: tid ac backlog-bytes backlog-packets new-flows drops marks overlimit collisions tx-bytes tx-packets flags 0 2 0 0 5342229 0 0 0 0 3867657029 5342229 0x0(RUN) 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 144 2 0x0(RUN) 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 282 2 0x0(RUN) 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) we see no difference between tx-packets and new-flows. W/O previous change: tid ac backlog-bytes backlog-packets new-flows drops marks overlimit collisions tx-bytes tx-packets flags 0 2 0 0 2233059 3 0 9236 12 1159661783 6380867 0x0(RUN) 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 144 2 0x0(RUN) 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 282 2 0x0(RUN) 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(RUN) new-flows are roughly one-third of the total tx-packets. > > -- > Erik -- Yibo _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k