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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 721D3C43381 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 391DE2173C for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="lt/abiOl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728929AbfC2Hrh (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 03:47:37 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f67.google.com ([209.85.167.67]:41467 "EHLO mail-lf1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728923AbfC2Hrh (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 03:47:37 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f67.google.com with SMTP id 10so769434lfr.8 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:47:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=16RBw0sHtutcmtKVgf3xkE3boQ6rSkgjVpd92UD/a+E=; b=lt/abiOl1fHdNjOEaZ3soZj7OXwAGpyK7finCpprCnDZjQW8hw7uALGsdxq6IVdoAW tPjE1EnTfEn/51gXVBkNuwbMSFmPIBjvmN0FQSNRmrIx1xMuRpRx8Kyv4uS9VIwp34iJ yLgvRir6XKbrkPbHatEqKgJjZZwUewCKrGoqlFRC1b4+X+f0HWdT7rpP4+ii33GLF8CN va4RS5IaAtj8ozIUs5JRinx8LIhne5ckRQbk6qDKK8kuQYq0ZkGv+4aHA62Ghfrcr3rk Ayq0WsDnICJeN2kcbZOd3Py0Z+dXhQ+tyMH8IiL5ucnJSccpnEHvauhLOOfoZV7TzQXx OHIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=16RBw0sHtutcmtKVgf3xkE3boQ6rSkgjVpd92UD/a+E=; b=sYiiK0Kqu6MlS72l3SAOwc2/w4XA0FWswMO2jS4Aekax+7usKEM+/GQHWvm76LX3Re S8ffy129SJmCPm0SlEASYv4A1YdPYo06cYwx+kVVuAg3O+w0PZFtvFLPEClXDJGgR3RY i3a8uAJDCJ0uvOWfjfoh+3mNV/3nRFKEbRahpqj/1jZtCVzz6f0blry6EYtvpONj0HNq 3Q4EB2Rd64D1Owka+EKTG1+YSiUK6gNljnm8TCK9vxaecEjBphkF19c7r2aVlxZ1C93j lXv+cF7akjV26dSMAxTwera6xKYslxydWGG84qlwMhqrDgFbJTZeCx/ZrqHcbT0g0tpp VQzg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXChnI1Pue+BGx6sSBxV4fItRxBZYXbV2ZMbxgJRO+VoVOUzp4i ENMHln86elwPRLruGxwj8wM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwEwhtASnOe8d1Kj/SQPuz7eM6KrY3dyn4O6rudjMagmxQ4QfafcOkwYQhUwsL1NvUVhmMMmA== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4354:: with SMTP id o20mr10742506lfl.62.1553845654913; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:47:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.244] (81-233-89-221-no75.tbcn.telia.com. [81.233.89.221]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n5sm177748lfh.6.2019.03.29.00.47.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: remove iteration in wake_tx_queue To: Peter Oh , "kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" Cc: "yiboz@codeaurora.org" References: <20190327162906.6010-1-erik.stromdahl@gmail.com> From: Erik Stromdahl Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 08:47:33 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On 3/27/19 6:49 PM, Peter Oh wrote: > > > On 03/27/2019 09:29 AM, Erik Stromdahl wrote: >> Iterating the TX queue and thereby dequeuing all available packets in the >> queue could result in performance penalties on some SMP systems. >> > Please share the test results and numbers you've run to help others > thoughts. > I haven't run any tests with ath10k PCIe, but Yibo Zhao had noticed a 10% degradation without this patch. Yibo: Can you provide iperf results etc. that shows the performance gain? -- Erik