Return-path: Received: from mail2.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.173]:47990 "EHLO mail2.candelatech.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750969AbeBZVjJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:39:09 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath9k: break out of irq handler after 5 jiffies To: Johannes Berg , Felix Fietkau , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <1517958324-13536-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> <2129dcdd-5963-c4da-600e-83f8c394d05c@nbd.name> <1518000956.3124.7.camel@sipsolutions.net> <2086dc09-485c-2b7f-de74-35ab2e0dfc4c@candelatech.com> From: Ben Greear Message-ID: (sfid-20180226_223913_363311_0655DC1F) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:39:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2086dc09-485c-2b7f-de74-35ab2e0dfc4c@candelatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/07/2018 07:39 AM, Ben Greear wrote: > > > On 02/07/2018 02:55 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 10:16 +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote: >>> On 2018-02-07 00:05, greearb@candelatech.com wrote: >>>> From: Ben Greear >>>> >>>> In case where the system is sluggish, we should probably break out >>>> early. Maybe this will fix issues where the OS thinks the IRQ handler >>>> is not responding and disables the IRQ because 'nobody cared' >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Greear >>> >>> 5 jiffies as a hardcoded value is a bad idea, since it produces >>> different behavior based on CONFIG_HZ. > > I figured that was a benefit since it would run shorter duration on systems with > a faster HZ clock. > >> >> Also, err, NAPI? Or is something else is going on here? > > I don't really know, but part of my test was running traffic while creating > 1200 stations, so likely there were lots of higher-level lock contention that > slowed down sending pkts up the stack. > > I got a bunch of errors about IRQs being ignored because nobody cared. I noticed > that the ath9k loop could handle up to 500 or so frames, and that seemed like too > many for my particular test case. > > Once I put in this patch, I did not see the 'nobody cared' error again. > > There could easily be a better fix. If you all want me to use a fixed time instead > of HZ, then please suggest a value. I was testing with HZ of 1000, btw. Hello, I don't mind changing this patch, but I could use some guidance as to what values you all want me to use. Should I use a millisecond based clock instead of jiffies? What time duration do you want if 5 Jiffies (or 5ms) is not desired? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com