From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80A4C433DB for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:27:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E0264DF5 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:27:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231493AbhBKL12 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2021 06:27:28 -0500 Received: from mail29.static.mailgun.info ([104.130.122.29]:30978 "EHLO mail29.static.mailgun.info" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230393AbhBKLZA (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Feb 2021 06:25:00 -0500 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1613042673; h=Content-Type: MIME-Version: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Date: References: Subject: Cc: To: From: Sender; bh=Dn9coNEToyxwX/TVzTX6emePR81SEBacxRQQnPTnmAE=; b=ql9uzKxjdkEPBZFZCBT36zdDcIEs5vz7g1GoqexU7GzmQRYK8AQPlZtuGPak4xaPnqI4MkNE KKpD9S2VmKTBdvcwEVv2orwexk9flApkyixdrrGhEctHT+vDlEcQQzBO6PAaaRXAQe3sMOMQ dBSZq4Mt0ZthOZJTiWdGGXYHo14= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 104.130.122.29 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyJiZjI2MiIsICJuZXRkZXZAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnIiwgImJlOWU0YSJd Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n04.prod.us-east-1.postgun.com with SMTP id 602513d83919dfb4559fa1c2 (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:24:08 GMT Sender: kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6CF49C43461; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:24:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from potku.adurom.net (88-114-240-156.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.240.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kvalo) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 826DBC433CA; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:24:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 826DBC433CA Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Shuah Khan Cc: Wen Gong , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org, kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ath10k: reduce invalid ht params rate message noise References: <76a816d983e6c4d636311738396f97971b5523fb.1612915444.git.skhan@linuxfoundation.org> <5c31f6dadbcc3dcb19239ad2b6106773@codeaurora.org> <87h7mktjgi.fsf@codeaurora.org> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:24:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Shuah Khan's message of "Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:13:07 -0700") Message-ID: <87wnvesv8t.fsf@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Shuah Khan writes: > On 2/10/21 1:28 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Wen Gong writes: >> >>> On 2021-02-10 08:42, Shuah Khan wrote: >>>> ath10k_mac_get_rate_flags_ht() floods dmesg with the following >>>> messages, >>>> when it fails to find a match for mcs=7 and rate=1440. >>>> >>>> supported_ht_mcs_rate_nss2: >>>> {7, {1300, 2700, 1444, 3000} } >>>> >>>> ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: invalid ht params rate 1440 100kbps nss 2 >>>> mcs 7 >>>> >>>> dev_warn_ratelimited() isn't helping the noise. Use dev_warn_once() >>>> instead. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan >>>> --- >>>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 5 +++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c >>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c >>>> index 3545ce7dce0a..276321f0cfdd 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c >>>> @@ -8970,8 +8970,9 @@ static void ath10k_mac_get_rate_flags_ht(struct >>>> ath10k *ar, u32 rate, u8 nss, u8 >>>> *bw |= RATE_INFO_BW_40; >>>> *flags |= RATE_INFO_FLAGS_SHORT_GI; >>>> } else { >>>> - ath10k_warn(ar, "invalid ht params rate %d 100kbps nss %d mcs %d", >>>> - rate, nss, mcs); >>>> + dev_warn_once(ar->dev, >>>> + "invalid ht params rate %d 100kbps nss %d mcs %d", >>>> + rate, nss, mcs); >>>> } >>>> } >>> >>> The {7, {1300, 2700, 1444, 3000} } is a correct value. >>> The 1440 is report from firmware, its a wrong value, it has fixed in >>> firmware. >> >> In what version? >> > > Here is the info: > > ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: qca6174 hw3.2 target 0x05030000 chip_id > 0x00340aff sub 17aa:0827 > > ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: firmware ver WLAN.RM.4.4.1-00140-QCARMSWPZ-1 > api 6 features wowlan,ignore-otp,mfp crc32 29eb8ca1 > > ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: board_file api 2 bmi_id N/A crc32 4ac0889b > > ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: htt-ver 3.60 wmi-op 4 htt-op 3 cal otp > max-sta 32 raw 0 hwcrypto 1 > >>> If change it to dev_warn_once, then it will have no chance to find the >>> other wrong values which report by firmware, and it indicate >>> a wrong value to mac80211/cfg80211 and lead "iw wlan0 station dump" >>> get a wrong bitrate. >> > > Agreed. > >> I agree, we should keep this warning. If the firmware still keeps >> sending invalid rates we should add a specific check to ignore the known >> invalid values, but not all of them. >> > > Would it be helpful to adjust the default rate limits and set the to > a higher value instead. It might be difficult to account all possible > invalid values? > > Something like, ath10k_warn_ratelimited() to adjust the > > DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL and DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST using > DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE > > Let me know if you like this idea. I can send a patch in to do this. > I will hang on to this firmware version for a little but longer, so > we have a test case. :) I would rather first try to fix the root cause, which is the firmware sending invalid rates. Wen, you mentioned there's a fix in firmware. Do you know which firmware version (and branch) has the fix? -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches