From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] mac80211: Add vif hash for multi-station RX performance.
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:19:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1365671968.8272.35.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <516455CA.6070504@candelatech.com>
On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 10:54 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> >> +struct sta_info *sta_info_get_by_vif(struct ieee80211_local *local,
> >> + const u8 *vif_addr, const u8 * sta_addr) {
> >> + struct sta_info *sta;
> >> +
> >> + sta = rcu_dereference_check(local->sta_vhash[STA_HASH(vif_addr)],
> >> + lockdep_is_held(&local->sta_mtx));
> >> + while (sta) {
> >> + if (ether_addr_equal(sta->sdata->vif.addr, vif_addr) &&
> >> + ether_addr_equal(sta->sta.addr, sta_addr))
> >> + break;
> >> + sta = rcu_dereference_check(sta->vnext,
> >> + lockdep_is_held(&local->sta_mtx));
> >
> > Almost all of your rcu_dereference_check() invocations should be
> > rcu_dereference_protected(). See include/linux/rcupdate.h :)
>
> Now this, I'm not so sure of. That rcu_dereference_protected seems to
> be only used for the 'update-side' use. I was under the impression
> that when the mac80211 rx logic is called we are only protected by rcu,
> not the update mutex.
Ah, yes, I was reading this the wrong way, sorry. Here the _check() is
correct of course -- you want to be either under RCU protection or hold
the sta_mtx.
> I also struggle to understand RCU properly...so maybe I'm just
> wrong about all that...
>
> The other methods to get sta_info around that code use the _check() variant,
> by the way...
Yeah ... :)
Another question: Have you thought about hashing the virtual interfaces
instead of the stations, and then hashing the stations inside each
virtual interface? That would make it a bit of a two-level thing:
A1 (in the frame) -> virtual interface
A2 (frame) -> station
But it would address the TX side efficiently without "some_sta" since
you know the virtual interface there already, and could potentially have
less impact on the code? On TX it'd actually even be more efficient if
you have more than 1 station per interface (right now you don't though)
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-11 9:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-03 16:48 [RFC 1/2] mac80211: Add vif hash for multi-station RX performance greearb
2013-04-03 16:48 ` [RFC 2/2] mac80211: Add vhash to debugfs greearb
2013-04-09 9:57 ` [RFC 1/2] mac80211: Add vif hash for multi-station RX performance Johannes Berg
2013-04-09 17:54 ` Ben Greear
2013-04-11 9:19 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2013-04-11 16:11 ` Ben Greear
2013-04-23 19:42 ` Ben Greear
2013-04-23 22:06 ` Ben Greear
2013-04-24 11:01 ` Johannes Berg
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=1365671968.8272.35.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).