> -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11:35 PM > To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>; Rakesh Pillai <pillair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ath10k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx; evgreen@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] Add support to process rx packets in thread > > On 7/21/20 10:25 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:44:19PM +0530, Rakesh Pillai wrote: > >> NAPI gets scheduled on the CPU core which got the > >> interrupt. The linux scheduler cannot move it to a > >> different core, even if the CPU on which NAPI is running > >> is heavily loaded. This can lead to degraded wifi > >> performance when running traffic at peak data rates. > >> > >> A thread on the other hand can be moved to different > >> CPU cores, if the one on which its running is heavily > >> loaded. During high incoming data traffic, this gives > >> better performance, since the thread can be moved to a > >> less loaded or sometimes even a more powerful CPU core > >> to account for the required CPU performance in order > >> to process the incoming packets. > >> > >> This patch series adds the support to use a high priority > >> thread to process the incoming packets, as opposed to > >> everything being done in NAPI context. > > > > I don't see why this problem is limited to the ath10k driver. I expect > > it applies to all drivers using NAPI. So shouldn't you be solving this > > in the NAPI core? Allow a driver to request the NAPI core uses a > > thread? > > What's more, you should be able to configure interrupt affinity to steer > RX processing onto a desired CPU core, is not that working for you > somehow? Hi Florian, Yes, the affinity of IRQ does work for me. But the affinity of IRQ does not happen runtime based on load. > -- > Florian
