From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>
To: Sujith <m.sujith@gmail.com>
Cc: "Senthil Balasubramanian" <senthilkumar@atheros.com>,
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
linville@tuxdriver.com
Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ath9k: Use GFP_ATOMIC when allocating TX private area
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:12:33 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43e72e890812022012o7759400mf002f51c0a3f0eb@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18742.299.281327.259785@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Sujith <m.sujith@gmail.com> wrote:
> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> @@ -1813,10 +1815,30 @@ int ath_tx_start(struct ath_softc *sc, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>
>> r = ath_tx_setup_buffer(sc, bf, skb, txctl);
>> if (r) {
>> - spin_lock_bh(&sc->sc_txbuflock);
>> + struct ath_txq *txq = NULL;
>> + int qnum;
>> +
>> + qnum = ath_get_hal_qnum(skb_get_queue_mapping(skb), sc);
>> + txq = &sc->sc_txq[qnum];
>> +
>> DPRINTF(sc, ATH_DBG_FATAL, "TX mem alloc failure\n");
>> +
>> + /* upon ath_tx_processq() this TX queue will be resumed, we
>> + * guarantee this will happen by knowing beforehand that
>> + * we will at least have to run TX completionon one buffer
>> + * on the queue */
>> + spin_lock_bh(&txq->axq_lock);
>> + if (ath_txq_depth(sc, txq->axq_qnum) > 1) {
>> + ieee80211_stop_queue(sc->hw,
>> + skb_get_queue_mapping(skb));
>> + txq->stopped = 1;
>> + }
>> + spin_unlock_bh(&txq->axq_lock);
>> +
>> + spin_lock_bh(&sc->sc_txbuflock);
>> list_add_tail(&bf->list, &sc->sc_txbuf);
>> spin_unlock_bh(&sc->sc_txbuflock);
>> +
>
> The queue is already available, we make sure of that before calling ath_tx_start().
> And the queue is sent through txctl.txq, you don't have to calculate the queue number again.
>
> So, just stopping the queue and moving the buffer back to the free list would be enough.
ath_test_get_txq() will not return the queue only if the queue is
getting full. What the check above guarantees is we have at least one
buffer to run through procesq before disabling the TX queue, otherwise
the queue won't be be woken up. Or am I missing something? That is,
say you just have to TX one skb and we hit -ENOMEM on
ath_tx_setup_buffer() and you disable the queue. How will this queue
be awoken if this is true in ath_tx_processq():
list_empty(&txq->axq_q)
Luis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-03 4:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-03 3:15 [PATCH v2 0/2] ath9k: few memory fixes Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-12-03 3:15 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] ath9k: Check for pci_map_single() errors Luis R. Rodriguez
2008-12-03 3:15 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] ath9k: Use GFP_ATOMIC when allocating TX private area Luis R. Rodriguez
[not found] ` <18742.299.281327.259785@localhost.localdomain>
2008-12-03 4:12 ` Luis R. Rodriguez [this message]
2008-12-03 4:50 ` [ath9k-devel] " Sujith
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=43e72e890812022012o7759400mf002f51c0a3f0eb@mail.gmail.com \
--to=lrodriguez@atheros.com \
--cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=m.sujith@gmail.com \
--cc=senthilkumar@atheros.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox