Search Linux Wireless

Re: [PATCH 3/3] brcmfmac: make setting SDIO workqueue WQ_HIGHPRI a module parameter

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 3/20/2020 9:08 AM, Wright Feng wrote:


Arend Van Spriel 於 3/19/2020 4:55 PM 寫道:
+ Tejun - regarding alloc_workqueue usage

On 3/19/2020 8:53 AM, Wright Feng wrote:
With setting sdio_wq_highpri=1 in module parameters, tasks submitted to
SDIO workqueue will put at the head of the queue and run immediately.
This parameter is for getting higher TX/RX throughput with SDIO bus.

Signed-off-by: Wright Feng <wright.feng@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Chi-hsien Lin <chi-hsien.lin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c  |  5 +++++
  .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.h  |  2 ++
  .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c    | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
  3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)


[...]

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
index 3a08252..885e8bd 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
@@ -4342,9 +4342,21 @@ struct brcmf_sdio *brcmf_sdio_probe(struct brcmf_sdio_dev *sdiodev)
      bus->txminmax = BRCMF_TXMINMAX;
      bus->tx_seq = SDPCM_SEQ_WRAP - 1;
+    /* attempt to attach to the dongle */
+    if (!(brcmf_sdio_probe_attach(bus))) {
+        brcmf_err("brcmf_sdio_probe_attach failed\n");
+        goto fail;
+    }
+
      /* single-threaded workqueue */
-    wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM,
-                     dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev));
+    if (sdiodev->settings->sdio_wq_highpri) {
+        wq = alloc_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s",
+                     WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_UNBOUND,
+                     1, dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev));

So two things changed, 1) WQ_HIGHPRI flag added *and* 2) use allow_workqueue basically dropping __WQ_ORDERED. Not sure which one contributes to the behavior described in the commit message.

The combination of Unbound and max_active==1 implies ordered, so I suppose we don't need to set __WQ_ORDERED bit in flags.

My reason for asking was the idea to only determine flags in the if-statement and have following by one alloc_wq call, ie.:

wq_flags = WQ_MEM_RECLAIM;
if (sdio_wq_highpri)
	wq_flags |= WQ_HIGHPRI
wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue(..., wq_flags,...);

Regards,
Arend



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Network]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Wireless Regulations]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux