From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3] mac80211: Optimize scans on current operating channel.
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:22:32 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D431778.1000604@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1296220846.5118.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
On 01/28/2011 05:20 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 10:33 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>
>>>> @@ -396,10 +397,14 @@ ieee80211_rx_h_passive_scan(struct ieee80211_rx_data *rx)
>>>> return ieee80211_scan_rx(rx->sdata, skb);
>>>>
>>>> if (test_bit(SCAN_SW_SCANNING,&local->scanning)) {
>>>> - /* drop all the other packets during a software scan anyway */
>>>> - if (ieee80211_scan_rx(rx->sdata, skb) != RX_QUEUED)
>>>> + ret = ieee80211_scan_rx(rx->sdata, skb);
>>>> + /* drop all the other packets while scanning off channel */
>>>> + if (ret != RX_QUEUED&&
>>>> + test_bit(SCAN_OFF_CHANNEL,&local->scanning)) {
>>>> dev_kfree_skb(skb);
>>>> - return RX_QUEUED;
>>>> + return RX_QUEUED;
>>>> + }
>>>> + return ret;
>>>
>>> Alright -- but does the mlme.c code know not to expect beacons during an
>>> on-channel scan?
>>
>> I have a more basic question on this:
>>
>> Should we just pass all packets on up the stack, regardless of whether we are
>> offchannel or not? I think that would simplify things here,
>> and if/when we ever support things other than just scanning on
>> different off-channels, that code would just work.
>
> I'm not really exactly sure why we don't.
>
> However -- I was thinking of something else, not data packets. While
> scanning, all received beacons will be handed to the scan code. But if
> the mlme code isn't told to stop looking for them, it'll still expect to
> see the beacons.
Currently, it seems mlme timers are stopped when we start scanning,
and then started when scanning is complete.
However, I don't see any similar effort in the work_work() method
when it goes off-channel.
Should we move the timer pause & restart logic into the offchannel_stop_vifs
and offchannel_return methods?
If that seems like a good idea, I'll attempt that as a follow on patch.
I don't think my changes make this any worse, so not critical to add this
to the current patch I'm working on.
Thanks,
Ben
>
> johannes
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-28 19:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-26 20:37 [RFC v3] mac80211: Optimize scans on current operating channel greearb
2011-01-27 13:52 ` Johannes Berg
2011-01-27 17:17 ` Ben Greear
2011-01-28 13:24 ` Johannes Berg
2011-01-28 18:47 ` Ben Greear
2011-01-27 18:33 ` Ben Greear
2011-01-28 13:20 ` Johannes Berg
2011-01-28 19:22 ` Ben Greear [this message]
2011-01-31 13:56 ` Johannes Berg
2011-01-31 17:30 ` Ben Greear
2011-01-31 17:32 ` 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=4D431778.1000604@candelatech.com \
--to=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--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).