Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-6927-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
To: Lingbo Kong <quic_lingbok@quicinc.com>
Cc: <ath12k@lists.infradead.org>,  <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] wifi: ath12k: report station mode transmit rate
References: <20240419032122.7009-1-quic_lingbok@quicinc.com>
	<20240419032122.7009-2-quic_lingbok@quicinc.com>
	<87bk5xs7qj.fsf@kernel.org>
	<050ae0d4-c879-40c2-b2ac-1766aaa2c789@quicinc.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:21:10 +0300
In-Reply-To: <050ae0d4-c879-40c2-b2ac-1766aaa2c789@quicinc.com> (Lingbo Kong's
	message of "Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:41:33 +0800")
Message-ID: <87v844qsih.fsf@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Lingbo Kong <quic_lingbok@quicinc.com> writes:

> On 2024/4/26 0:54, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Lingbo Kong <quic_lingbok@quicinc.com> writes:
>> 
>>> +static void ath12k_dp_tx_update_txcompl(struct ath12k *ar, struct
>>> hal_tx_status *ts)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct ath12k_base *ab = ar->ab;
>>> +	struct ath12k_peer *peer;
>>> +	struct ath12k_sta *arsta;
>>> +	struct ieee80211_sta *sta;
>>> +	u16 rate;
>>> +	u8 rate_idx = 0;
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	spin_lock_bh(&ab->base_lock);
>>
>> Did you analyse how this function, and especially taking the
>> base_lock,
>> affects performance?
>
> The base_lock is used here because of the need to look for peers based
> on the ts->peer_id when calling ath12k_peer_find_by_id() function,
> which i think might affect performance.
>
> Do i need to run a throughput test?

Ok, so to answer my question: no, you didn't do any performance
analysis. Throughput test might not be enough, for example the driver
can be used on slower systems and running the test on a fast CPU might
not reveal any problem. A proper analysis would be much better.

>>> +enum nl80211_he_ru_alloc
>>> ath12k_mac_he_ru_tones_to_nl80211_he_ru_alloc(u16 ru_tones)
>>> +{
>>> +	enum nl80211_he_ru_alloc ret;
>>> +
>>> +	switch (ru_tones) {
>>> +	case 26:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_26;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case 52:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_52;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case 106:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_106;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case 242:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_242;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case 484:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_484;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case 996:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_996;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case (996 * 2):
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_2x996;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	default:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_26;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	return ret;
>>> +}
>> How does this function compare to
>> ath12k_he_ru_tones_to_nl80211_he_ru_alloc()?
>> 
>
> ath12k_mac_he_ru_tones_to_nl80211_he_ru_alloc() is different from
> ath12k_he_ru_tones_to_nl80211_he_ru_alloc().
>
> the logic of ath12k_he_ru_tones_to_nl80211_he_ru_alloc() is

Sure, I can read C. But _why_ do we have two very similar but still
different functions. That looks fishy to me.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches