Hi Andi,
> > With this patch (1/6) applied, I'm getting soft-lockup watchdog:
> >
> > BUG: soft lockup - CPU#3 stuck for 22s! [kworker/3:1:37]
>
> My bad here, should be like this when patch is applied first:
>
> @@ -919,8 +919,12 @@ mwifiex_wmm_get_highest_priolist_ptr(struct
> mwifiex_adapter *adapter,
>
> do {
> priv_tmp = bssprio_node->priv;
> - hqp = &priv_tmp->wmm.highest_queued_prio;
>
> + if (atomic_read(&priv_tmp->wmm.tx_pkts_queued) == 0)
> + goto skip_bss;
> +
> + /* iterate over the WMM queues of the BSS */
> + hqp = &priv_tmp->wmm.highest_queued_prio;
> for (i = atomic_read(hqp); i >= LOW_PRIO_TID; --i) {
>
> tid_ptr = &(priv_tmp)->wmm.
> @@ -980,12 +984,7 @@ mwifiex_wmm_get_highest_priolist_ptr(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter,
> } while (ptr != head);
> }
>
> - /* No packet at any TID for this priv. Mark as
> such
> - * to skip checking TIDs for this priv (until
> pkt is
> - * added).
> - */
> - atomic_set(hqp, NO_PKT_PRIO_TID);
> -
> +skip_bss:
> /* Get next bss priority node */
> bssprio_node = list_first_entry(&bssprio_node->list,
> struct mwifiex_bss_prio_node,
Thanks for looking into it. This change fixes the soft-lockup.
>
> That said, yes I developed the pathset the other way round. First
> cleaned up, until I knew how to fix the bug best. Then pulled the fix
> in front of the cleanup patches and -- mea culpa -- didn't test the
> patches individually. Sorry again.
>
> Also found issue here, which could be a problem without patch 6/6:
>
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/wmm.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/wmm.c
> @@ -688,13 +688,13 @@ mwifiex_wmm_add_buf_txqueue(struct mwifiex_private *priv,
> ra_list->total_pkts_size += skb->len;
> ra_list->pkt_count++;
>
> - atomic_inc(&priv->wmm.tx_pkts_queued);
> -
> if (atomic_read(&priv->wmm.highest_queued_prio) <
> tos_to_tid_inv[tid_down])
> atomic_set(&priv->wmm.highest_queued_prio,
> tos_to_tid_inv[tid_down]);
>
> + atomic_inc(&priv->wmm.tx_pkts_queued);
> +
>
>
> How should I proceed? Can I reorder patches to match my development
> cycle, which is? 2-5;1;6 or more verbosely cleanup first followed
> by bug fix and proper locking last
You can separate 6 patches into two patch sets.
1-3 fix the bug and clean up.
4-6 implement ra list rotation and proper locking.
We will run stress tests against 4-6.
Thanks,
Bing
>
> Or should keep the order as is, but fix patch 1, and propagate changes
> through patch 2 till 6?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
