* Re: CPU load after killing iwlagn with RF kill switch [not found] <48A5EC02.4070303@gmail.com> @ 2008-08-17 1:59 ` Mirco Tischler 2008-08-17 7:04 ` Tomas Winkler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Mirco Tischler @ 2008-08-17 1:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Leonid Podolny Cc: linux-kernel, yi.zhu, reinette.chatre, linux-wireless, IvDoorn [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2072 bytes --] On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:50:10 +0300, Leonid Podolny wrote: > Hi, > With a new iwlagn driver and 2.6.27-rc3, if I turn off the wireless > (intel 4965ag) by RF kill switch, the CPU utilization of ksoftirqd > process raises to 100% and stays there until I rmmod the module. > Please let me know what further information I can provide. Hi Same on my machine with same chip and same kernel. If I use the switch on the side of my laptop to turn off wlan, ksoftirqd eats up one core of my cpu til I switch it on again or rmmod the iwlagn module. But when I switch it on before the device loses connection and then off a second time, I now get a (the) second ksoftirqd process eating up the other core too. This only happens if a connection is established, though. I'm not sure if this problem existed in 2.6.26 but I doubt it. (Will check if I find the time). My dmesg shows me this: [48067.257539] iwlagn: Radio Frequency Kill Switch is On: [48067.257539] Kill switch must be turned off for wireless networking to work. [48071.295154] wlan0: No ProbeResp from current AP 00:c0:a8:e5:e5:a5 - assume out of range [48072.099173] iwlagn: Error sending REPLY_ADD_STA: enqueue_hcmd failed: -5 [48072.099260] mac80211-phy1: failed to remove key (0, 00:c0:a8:e5:e5:a5) from hardware (-5) [48072.206028] iwlagn: Error sending REPLY_ADD_STA: enqueue_hcmd failed: -5 [48072.206028] mac80211-phy1: failed to remove key (1, ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff) from hardware (-5) The probably interesting parts of my config look like that: CONFIG_IWLWIFI=m CONFIG_IWLCORE=m CONFIG_IWLWIFI_LEDS=y CONFIG_IWLWIFI_RFKILL=y # CONFIG_IWLWIFI_DEBUG is not set CONFIG_IWLAGN=m CONFIG_IWLAGN_SPECTRUM_MEASUREMENT=y CONFIG_IWLAGN_LEDS=y CONFIG_IWL4965=y # CONFIG_IWL5000 is not set # CONFIG_IWL3945 is not set CONFIG_RFKILL=m # CONFIG_RFKILL_INPUT is not set CONFIG_RFKILL_LEDS=y CONFIG_IWLWIFI_RFKILL=y I can recompile with debug options set if this helps. Just haven't found the time. Thanks Mirco P.S.: added some cc's for iwlwifi and rfkill. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: CPU load after killing iwlagn with RF kill switch 2008-08-17 1:59 ` CPU load after killing iwlagn with RF kill switch Mirco Tischler @ 2008-08-17 7:04 ` Tomas Winkler 2008-08-17 15:02 ` John W. Linville 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Tomas Winkler @ 2008-08-17 7:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mirco Tischler Cc: Leonid Podolny, linux-kernel, yi.zhu, reinette.chatre, linux-wireless, IvDoorn On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Mirco Tischler <mt-ml@gmx.de> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:50:10 +0300, Leonid Podolny wrote: >> Hi, >> With a new iwlagn driver and 2.6.27-rc3, if I turn off the wireless >> (intel 4965ag) by RF kill switch, the CPU utilization of ksoftirqd >> process raises to 100% and stays there until I rmmod the module. >> Please let me know what further information I can provide. > > Hi > > Same on my machine with same chip and same kernel. > If I use the switch on the side of my laptop to turn off wlan, ksoftirqd eats > up one core of my cpu til I switch it on again or rmmod the iwlagn module. But > when I switch it on before the device loses connection and then off a second > time, I now get a (the) second ksoftirqd process eating up the other core too. > This only happens if a connection is established, though. > I'm not sure if this problem existed in 2.6.26 but I doubt it. (Will check if I > find the time). > > My dmesg shows me this: > > [48067.257539] iwlagn: Radio Frequency Kill Switch is On: > [48067.257539] Kill switch must be turned off for wireless networking to work. > [48071.295154] wlan0: No ProbeResp from current AP 00:c0:a8:e5:e5:a5 - assume > out of range > [48072.099173] iwlagn: Error sending REPLY_ADD_STA: enqueue_hcmd failed: -5 > [48072.099260] mac80211-phy1: failed to remove key (0, 00:c0:a8:e5:e5:a5) from > hardware (-5) > [48072.206028] iwlagn: Error sending REPLY_ADD_STA: enqueue_hcmd failed: -5 > [48072.206028] mac80211-phy1: failed to remove key (1, ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff) from > hardware (-5) > > The probably interesting parts of my config look like that: > > CONFIG_IWLWIFI=m > CONFIG_IWLCORE=m > CONFIG_IWLWIFI_LEDS=y > CONFIG_IWLWIFI_RFKILL=y > # CONFIG_IWLWIFI_DEBUG is not set > CONFIG_IWLAGN=m > CONFIG_IWLAGN_SPECTRUM_MEASUREMENT=y > CONFIG_IWLAGN_LEDS=y > CONFIG_IWL4965=y > # CONFIG_IWL5000 is not set > # CONFIG_IWL3945 is not set > > CONFIG_RFKILL=m > # CONFIG_RFKILL_INPUT is not set > CONFIG_RFKILL_LEDS=y > CONFIG_IWLWIFI_RFKILL=y > > I can recompile with debug options set if this helps. Just haven't found the > time. There is gap in current rfkill implementation that we didn't close yet. There were also few patches that were not signed by Intel and are apparently wrong. Tomas. > Thanks > Mirco > > P.S.: added some cc's for iwlwifi and rfkill. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: CPU load after killing iwlagn with RF kill switch 2008-08-17 7:04 ` Tomas Winkler @ 2008-08-17 15:02 ` John W. Linville 2008-08-17 16:20 ` Tomas Winkler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: John W. Linville @ 2008-08-17 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tomas Winkler Cc: Mirco Tischler, Leonid Podolny, linux-kernel, yi.zhu, reinette.chatre, linux-wireless, IvDoorn On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:04:12AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > There is gap in current rfkill implementation that we didn't close > yet. There were also few patches that were not signed by Intel and > are apparently wrong. Can you be more specific? Do you know which patches are wrong (even if you don't know how to fix them)? John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: CPU load after killing iwlagn with RF kill switch 2008-08-17 15:02 ` John W. Linville @ 2008-08-17 16:20 ` Tomas Winkler 2008-08-17 17:07 ` John W. Linville 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Tomas Winkler @ 2008-08-17 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John W. Linville Cc: Mirco Tischler, Leonid Podolny, linux-kernel, yi.zhu, reinette.chatre, linux-wireless, IvDoorn On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:02 PM, John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:04:12AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > >> There is gap in current rfkill implementation that we didn't close >> yet. There were also few patches that were not signed by Intel and >> are apparently wrong. > > Can you be more specific? Do you know which patches are wrong (even > if you don't know how to fix them)? > 80fcc9e28cf3a209fbfb39a7bbddc313c59c7424 This one is wrong and there are more then are not acked even though they cause no problem. In general I would prefer that patches will be acked by Yi or me. I will try to rebase our rfkill fixes ASAP from iwlwifi-2.6. iwl5000 branch. Thanks Tomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: CPU load after killing iwlagn with RF kill switch 2008-08-17 16:20 ` Tomas Winkler @ 2008-08-17 17:07 ` John W. Linville 2008-08-17 18:01 ` Tomas Winkler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: John W. Linville @ 2008-08-17 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tomas Winkler Cc: Mirco Tischler, Leonid Podolny, linux-kernel, yi.zhu, reinette.chatre, linux-wireless, IvDoorn On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 07:20:54PM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:02 PM, John W. Linville > <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:04:12AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > > > >> There is gap in current rfkill implementation that we didn't close > >> yet. There were also few patches that were not signed by Intel and > >> are apparently wrong. > > > > Can you be more specific? Do you know which patches are wrong (even > > if you don't know how to fix them)? > > > > 80fcc9e28cf3a209fbfb39a7bbddc313c59c7424 > This one is wrong and there are more then are not acked even though > they cause no problem. In general I would prefer that patches will be > acked by Yi or me. And in general, they are. In general I would prefer if you would work upstream instead of working in iwlwifi-2.6 and periodically dumping a dozen or more patches on me all at once. C'est la vie... > I will try to rebase our rfkill fixes ASAP from iwlwifi-2.6. iwl5000 branch. Thanks! John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: CPU load after killing iwlagn with RF kill switch 2008-08-17 17:07 ` John W. Linville @ 2008-08-17 18:01 ` Tomas Winkler 2008-08-25 19:31 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Tomas Winkler @ 2008-08-17 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John W. Linville Cc: Mirco Tischler, Leonid Podolny, linux-kernel, yi.zhu, reinette.chatre, linux-wireless, IvDoorn On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 8:07 PM, John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 07:20:54PM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:02 PM, John W. Linville >> <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:04:12AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: >> > >> >> There is gap in current rfkill implementation that we didn't close >> >> yet. There were also few patches that were not signed by Intel and >> >> are apparently wrong. >> > >> > Can you be more specific? Do you know which patches are wrong (even >> > if you don't know how to fix them)? >> > >> >> 80fcc9e28cf3a209fbfb39a7bbddc313c59c7424 >> This one is wrong and there are more then are not acked even though >> they cause no problem. In general I would prefer that patches will be >> acked by Yi or me. > > And in general, they are. In general I would prefer if you would > work upstream instead of working in iwlwifi-2.6 and periodically > dumping a dozen or more patches on me all at once. C'est la vie... We cannot because no OSV or OEM ships latest kernel and mac80211 is periodically broken. There is a reason why compat-wireless was brought to life. The innovation to stabilization and testing ratio is not good. This is of course more complex than that and I didn't find the golden way yet. >> I will try to rebase our rfkill fixes ASAP from iwlwifi-2.6. iwl5000 branch. > > Thanks! > > John > -- > John W. Linville > linville@tuxdriver.com > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: CPU load after killing iwlagn with RF kill switch 2008-08-17 18:01 ` Tomas Winkler @ 2008-08-25 19:31 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2008-08-25 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tomas Winkler Cc: John W. Linville, Mirco Tischler, Leonid Podolny, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhu@intel.com, reinette.chatre@intel.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, IvDoorn@gmail.com On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:01:26AM -0700, Tomas Winkler wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 8:07 PM, John W. Linville > <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 07:20:54PM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:02 PM, John W. Linville > >> <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > >> > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:04:12AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote: > >> > > >> >> There is gap in current rfkill implementation that we didn't close > >> >> yet. There were also few patches that were not signed by Intel and > >> >> are apparently wrong. > >> > > >> > Can you be more specific? Do you know which patches are wrong (even > >> > if you don't know how to fix them)? > >> > > >> > >> 80fcc9e28cf3a209fbfb39a7bbddc313c59c7424 > >> This one is wrong and there are more then are not acked even though > >> they cause no problem. In general I would prefer that patches will be > >> acked by Yi or me. > > > > And in general, they are. In general I would prefer if you would > > work upstream instead of working in iwlwifi-2.6 and periodically > > dumping a dozen or more patches on me all at once. C'est la vie... > > We cannot because no OSV or OEM ships latest kernel and mac80211 is > periodically broken. There is a reason why compat-wireless was > brought to life. The innovation to stabilization and testing ratio is > not good. This is of course more complex than that and I didn't find > the golden way yet. compat-wireless came to life to prevent alternative tree solutions, to prevent patch hogging in separate trees and to try to help with backward compatibility. That was my main motivation. If mac80211 is broken I see no one but ourselves to blame. OEMs should rely on stock kernels distributions pick. If patches are needed on top of that then patch *fixes* should be supplied on top of the stable kernel. Development work (cleanups, etc) can go onto wireless-testing then. Luis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-08-25 19:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <48A5EC02.4070303@gmail.com>
2008-08-17 1:59 ` CPU load after killing iwlagn with RF kill switch Mirco Tischler
2008-08-17 7:04 ` Tomas Winkler
2008-08-17 15:02 ` John W. Linville
2008-08-17 16:20 ` Tomas Winkler
2008-08-17 17:07 ` John W. Linville
2008-08-17 18:01 ` Tomas Winkler
2008-08-25 19:31 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
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).