> From: Jian-Hong Pan
> Subject: [PATCH v4] rtw88: pci: Move a mass of jobs in hw IRQ to soft IRQ
>
> There is a mass of jobs between spin lock and unlock in the hardware
> IRQ which will occupy much time originally. To make system work more
> efficiently, this patch moves the jobs to the soft IRQ (bottom half) to
> reduce the time in hardware IRQ.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jian-Hong Pan <[email protected]>
> ---
> v2:
> Change the spin_lock_irqsave/unlock_irqrestore to spin_lock/unlock in
> rtw_pci_interrupt_handler. Because the interrupts are already disabled
> in the hardware interrupt handler.
>
> v3:
> Extend the spin lock protecting area for the TX path in
> rtw_pci_interrupt_threadfn by Realtek's suggestion
>
> v4:
> Remove the WiFi running check in rtw_pci_interrupt_threadfn to avoid AP
> connection failed by Realtek's suggestion.
>
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c
> index 00ef229552d5..955dd6c6fb57 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c
> @@ -866,12 +866,29 @@ static irqreturn_t rtw_pci_interrupt_handler(int irq,
> void *dev)
> {
> struct rtw_dev *rtwdev = dev;
> struct rtw_pci *rtwpci = (struct rtw_pci *)rtwdev->priv;
> - u32 irq_status[4];
>
> spin_lock(&rtwpci->irq_lock);
> if (!rtwpci->irq_enabled)
> goto out;
>
> + /* disable RTW PCI interrupt to avoid more interrupts before the end of
> + * thread function
> + */
> + rtw_pci_disable_interrupt(rtwdev, rtwpci);
> +out:
> + spin_unlock(&rtwpci->irq_lock);
> +
> + return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
> +}
> +
> +static irqreturn_t rtw_pci_interrupt_threadfn(int irq, void *dev)
> +{
> + struct rtw_dev *rtwdev = dev;
> + struct rtw_pci *rtwpci = (struct rtw_pci *)rtwdev->priv;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u32 irq_status[4];
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&rtwpci->irq_lock, flags);
> rtw_pci_irq_recognized(rtwdev, rtwpci, irq_status);
>
> if (irq_status[0] & IMR_MGNTDOK)
> @@ -891,8 +908,9 @@ static irqreturn_t rtw_pci_interrupt_handler(int irq,
> void *dev)
> if (irq_status[0] & IMR_ROK)
> rtw_pci_rx_isr(rtwdev, rtwpci, RTW_RX_QUEUE_MPDU);
>
> -out:
> - spin_unlock(&rtwpci->irq_lock);
> + /* all of the jobs for this interrupt have been done */
> + rtw_pci_enable_interrupt(rtwdev, rtwpci);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtwpci->irq_lock, flags);
>
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
> @@ -1152,8 +1170,10 @@ static int rtw_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> goto err_destroy_pci;
> }
>
> - ret = request_irq(pdev->irq, &rtw_pci_interrupt_handler,
> - IRQF_SHARED, KBUILD_MODNAME, rtwdev);
> + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(rtwdev->dev, pdev->irq,
> + rtw_pci_interrupt_handler,
> + rtw_pci_interrupt_threadfn,
> + IRQF_SHARED, KBUILD_MODNAME, rtwdev);
> if (ret) {
> ieee80211_unregister_hw(hw);
> goto err_destroy_pci;
> @@ -1192,7 +1212,7 @@ static void rtw_pci_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> rtw_pci_disable_interrupt(rtwdev, rtwpci);
> rtw_pci_destroy(rtwdev, pdev);
> rtw_pci_declaim(rtwdev, pdev);
> - free_irq(rtwpci->pdev->irq, rtwdev);
> + devm_free_irq(rtwdev->dev, rtwpci->pdev->irq, rtwdev);
> rtw_core_deinit(rtwdev);
> ieee80211_free_hw(hw);
> }
> --
> 2.20.1
Now it works fine with MSI interrupt enabled.
But this patch is conflicting with MSI interrupt patch.
Is there a better way we can make Kalle apply them more smoothly?
I can rebase them and submit both if you're OK.
Yan-Hsuan
Tony Chuang <[email protected]> writes:
>> From: Jian-Hong Pan
>> Subject: [PATCH v4] rtw88: pci: Move a mass of jobs in hw IRQ to soft IRQ
>>
>> There is a mass of jobs between spin lock and unlock in the hardware
>> IRQ which will occupy much time originally. To make system work more
>> efficiently, this patch moves the jobs to the soft IRQ (bottom half) to
>> reduce the time in hardware IRQ.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jian-Hong Pan <[email protected]>
>
> Now it works fine with MSI interrupt enabled.
>
> But this patch is conflicting with MSI interrupt patch.
> Is there a better way we can make Kalle apply them more smoothly?
> I can rebase them and submit both if you're OK.
Yeah, submitting all the MSI patches in the same patchset is the easiest
approach. That way they apply cleanly to wireless-drivers-next.
--
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
Kalle Valo <[email protected]> 於 2019年9月2日 週一 下午8:18寫道：
>
> Tony Chuang <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> From: Jian-Hong Pan
> >> Subject: [PATCH v4] rtw88: pci: Move a mass of jobs in hw IRQ to soft IRQ
> >>
> >> There is a mass of jobs between spin lock and unlock in the hardware
> >> IRQ which will occupy much time originally. To make system work more
> >> efficiently, this patch moves the jobs to the soft IRQ (bottom half) to
> >> reduce the time in hardware IRQ.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jian-Hong Pan <[email protected]>
> >
> > Now it works fine with MSI interrupt enabled.
> >
> > But this patch is conflicting with MSI interrupt patch.
> > Is there a better way we can make Kalle apply them more smoothly?
> > I can rebase them and submit both if you're OK.
The rebase work is appreciated.
Thank you,
Jian-Hong Pan
> Yeah, submitting all the MSI patches in the same patchset is the easiest
> approach. That way they apply cleanly to wireless-drivers-next.
>
> --
> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
> From: Jian-Hong Pan [mailto:[email protected]]
>
> >
> > Tony Chuang <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > >> From: Jian-Hong Pan
> > >> Subject: [PATCH v4] rtw88: pci: Move a mass of jobs in hw IRQ to soft
> IRQ
> > >>
> > >> There is a mass of jobs between spin lock and unlock in the hardware
> > >> IRQ which will occupy much time originally. To make system work more
> > >> efficiently, this patch moves the jobs to the soft IRQ (bottom half) to
> > >> reduce the time in hardware IRQ.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Jian-Hong Pan <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Now it works fine with MSI interrupt enabled.
> > >
> > > But this patch is conflicting with MSI interrupt patch.
> > > Is there a better way we can make Kalle apply them more smoothly?
> > > I can rebase them and submit both if you're OK.
>
> The rebase work is appreciated.
>
Rebased and sent. Please check it and see if I've done anything wrong :)
https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11127453/
Thanks,
Yan-Hsuan