Hi Mat,
> >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Mat Martineau<mathewm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> The previous ERTM implementation had a handler for each frame type,
> >>>> and each handler had to figure out what the current state was and
> >>>> handle each frame accordingly.
> >>>>
> >>>> This implementation has a state machine that chooses an execution path
> >>>> first based on the receive or transmit state, then each state has
> >>>> handlers for the frame types. This is easier to match up with the
> >>>> spec, which is defined similarly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mat Martineau<mathewm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> @@ -1245,7 +1457,8 @@ int __l2cap_wait_ack(struct sock *sk)
> >>>
> >>> add_wait_queue(sk_sleep(sk),&wait);
> >>> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> >>> - while (chan->unacked_frames> 0&& chan->conn) {
> >>> + while (chan->unacked_frames> 0&& chan->conn&&
> >>> + atomic_read(&chan->ertm_queued)) {
> >>> if (!timeo)
> >>> timeo = HZ/5;
> >>>
> >>> Can we have unacked_frames> 0 and nothing queued? Or have I misinterpreted?
> >>
> >> In normal operation, there should be unacked frames when ertm_queued
> >> is non-zero. I think I ran in to a corner case with AMP, where
> >> unacked_frames can be forced to 0 during a channel move. There are
> >> AMP components to the state machine that are not included in this
> >> patch.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> + BT_DBG("Sent txseq %d", (int)control->txseq);
> >>>
> >>> - skb = skb_queue_next(&chan->tx_q, skb);
> >>> + chan->next_tx_seq = __next_seq(chan->next_tx_seq, chan);
> >>> + chan->frames_sent += 1;
> >>> + sent += 1;
> >>>
> >>> Nitpick here. frames_sent++ and sent++ ? Happens in other places as
> >>> well so I won't copy all of them here.
> >>
> >> Ok, will fix.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> - if (bt_cb(skb)->retries == 1) {
> >>> - chan->unacked_frames++;
> >>> + l2cap_chan_hold(chan);
> >>> + sock_hold(chan->sk);
> >>> + tx_skb->sk = chan->sk;
> >>>
> >>> Do we really need these? Do we always have chan->sk? (We have that in
> >>> l2cap_ertm_send() and l2cap_ertm_resend()).
> >>
> >> The upstream ERTM code still relies on having chan->sk, so I didn't
> >> try to finish splitting channels & sockets within this patch. skb
> >> destructors expect to have an sk pointer, so it is critical to
> >> modify these reference counts so the socket and chan are around when
> >> the skb leaves the hci tx queue.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> + keep_sk = schedule_work(&chan->tx_work);
> >>>
> >>> Would make sense to schedule this in hdev->workqueue?
> >>
> >> It's a tradeoff. If this is scheduled on hdev->workqueue, then that
> >> workqueue can get blocked waiting for the socket lock. If these are
> >> scheduled on the system workqueue, there is potential for more
> >> latency (but it hasn't been a problem in practice, even with AMP
> >> data rates).
> >>
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> +static void l2cap_ertm_tx_worker(struct work_struct *work)
> >>> {
> >>>
> >>> Why do we need this worker?
> >>
> >> To control the depth of the hci tx queue. Without this, you end up
> >> with an entire tx window of iframes queued up at the hci layer.
> >> When an sframe shows up from the remote device and you have to
> >> retransmit, or when an sframe needs to be sent, then retransmissions
> >> and sframes have to get queued behind that full tx window of
> >> iframes. It adds a HUGE amount of latency in those situations,
> >> which leads to ERTM timeouts and disconnects that are not necessary.
> >> ERTM works much, much better with lossy connections (like AMP) if it
> >> does not flood the hci tx queue.
> >>
> >> We had a discussion on the list about how to solve this. The idea
> >> is to push most queuing up to the L2CAP layer, and have the hci
> >> scheduler call up to L2CAP to fetch frames. However, this hasn't
> >> been implemented yet.
> >
> > Ok, I can see why you added tx_work now. We really need to move to the new
> > proposal here.
>
> I was hoping we could use this callback method for now, then implement
> the new proposal. It seems better to have ERTM working well from the
> start. Both designs have callbacks to L2CAP (this one actually makes
> fewer callbacks). If you want me to rip out the skb destructor
> callbacks, I can do it now.
how much effort would it be? I am fine with doing this a little bit
later on if this would take too much time. Give me an idea how
complicated the change would be at this time.
> > Also I think the most important thing here is not point out wrong stuff in
> > this huge patch but find ways to split it in many patches. If we could get a
> > cleaner and rebased patch fixing the unnecessary renames and functions move,
> > etc. that would be good for us. :)
>
> Now that I have the input for l2cap.h, I'll update l2cap_core.c and
> start splitting it up. My understanding from earlier discussion of
> this ERTM change is that there are a few independent changes that can
> be added without breaking the current ERTM implementation, but the big
> changes will have to add inactive code in parallel. After all the
> code is there, we will make it active and remove the old code. Let me
> know if I've misunderstood.
That sounds perfectly fine to. Small changes that can be done right now
without breaking the current code should go in right away. Like some
renaming, moving of code, cleanup and so.
After that, lets add the extra code you need, activate it, and then
delete the unused code.
Regards
Marcel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
