Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 2018-09-10 at 17:00 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > >> > Do we even need end_schedule()? It's hard to pass multiple things to a >> > single call (do you build a list?), so having >> > >> > start_schedule(), get_txq(), return_txq() >> > >> > would be sufficient? >> >> Well, start_schedule() / end_schedule() would be needed if we are going >> to add locking in mac80211? > > [...] > >> If we decide mac80211 needs to do locking to prevent two threads from >> scheduling the same ac, that would also be needed for the hw-managed >> case? > > Yes, good point. > >> > It seems like not? Basically it seems to me that in the hw-managed >> > case all you need is may_tx()? And in fact, once you opt in you don't >> > even really need *that* since mac80211 can just return NULL from >> > get_skb()? >> >> Yeah, we could just throttle in get_skb(); the separate call was to >> avoid the overhead of the check for every packet. Typically, you'll pick >> a TXQ, then dequeue multiple packets from it in succession; with a >> separate call to may_tx(), you only do the check once, not for every >> packet... > > Yeah, also a good point. > > Still, txq = get_txq(txq) doesn't feel right, so better to keep that > separate I think. Right, will do :) -Toke
