Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <b14519e81b6d2335bd0cb7dcf074f0d1a4eec707.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: iwlwifi warnings in 5.5-rc1
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Toke =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= <toke@redhat.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>,
        Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com>
Cc:     "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:12:31 +0100
In-Reply-To: <87r21bez5g.fsf@toke.dk>
References: <ceb74ea2-6a1b-4cef-8749-db21a2ee4311@kernel.dk>
         <9727368004ceef03f72d259b0779c2cf401432e1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <878snjgs5l.fsf@toke.dk>
         <3420d73e667b01ec64bf0cc9da6232b41e862860.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <875zingnzt.fsf@toke.dk>
         <bfab4987668990ea8d86a98f3e87c3fa31403745.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <14bbfcc8408500704c46701251546e7ff65c6fd0.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <87r21bez5g.fsf@toke.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 (3.34.2-1.fc31) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 15:04 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> writes:
> 
> > Btw, there's *another* issue. You said in the commit log:
> > 
> >     This patch does *not* include any mechanism to wake a throttled TXQ again,
> >     on the assumption that this will happen anyway as a side effect of whatever
> >     freed the skb (most commonly a TX completion).
> > 
> > Thinking about this some more, I'm not convinced that this assumption
> > holds. You could have been stopped due to the global limit, and now you
> > wake some queue but the TXQ is empty - now you should reschedule some
> > *other* TXQ since the global limit had kicked in, not the per-TXQ limit,
> > and prevented dequeuing, no?
> 
> Well if you hit the global limit that means you have 24ms worth of data
> queued in the hardware; those should be completed in turn, and enable
> more to be dequeued, no?

Yes, but on which queues?

Say you have some queues - some (Q1-Qn) got a LOT of traffic, and
another (Q0) just has some interactive traffic.

You could then end up in a situation where you have 24ms queued up on
Q1-Qn (with n high enough to not have hit the per-queue AQL limit),
right?

Say also the last frame on Q0 was dequeued by the hardware, but the
tx_dequeue() got NULL because of the AQL limit having been eaten up by
all the packets on Q1-Qn.

Now you'll no longer get a new dequeue attempt on Q0 (it was already
empty last time, so no hardware reclaim to trigger new dequeues), and a
new dequeue on the *other* queues will not do anything for this queue.

johannes