petter@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
> From: Petter Mabacker <petter.mabacker@xxxxxxx>
>
> The rtw8822cu driver have problem to handle high rx or tx rates compared
> with high load (such as high I/O) on slower systems, such as for example
> i.MX6 SoloX and similar platforms.
>
> The problems are more frequent when having the access point close to the
> device. On slower systems it's often enough to download a large file,
> combined with generating I/O load to trigger:
>
> [ 374.763424] rtw_8822cu 1-1.2:1.2: failed to get tx report from firmware
> [ 377.771790] rtw_8822cu 1-1.2:1.2: failed to send h2c command
> [ 407.813460] rtw_8822cu 1-1.2:1.2: firmware failed to report density after scan
> [ 414.965826] rtw_8822cu 1-1.2:1.2: failed to send h2c command
> [ 444.993462] rtw_8822cu 1-1.2:1.2: firmware failed to report density after scan
> [ 452.144551] rtw_8822cu 1-1.2:1.2: failed to send h2c command
> [ 482.183445] rtw_8822cu 1-1.2:1.2: firmware failed to report density after scan
> [ 489.426263] rtw_8822cu 1-1.2:1.2: failed to send h2c command
>
> Another way is to simply perform a wifi rescan.
>
> Benchmarking shows that setting a high prio workqueue for tx/rx will
> significally improve things. Also compared alloc_workqueue with
> alloc_ordered_workqueue, but even thou the later seems to slightly
> improve things it's still quite easy to reproduce the above issues. So
> that leads to the decision to go for alloc_workqueue.
>
> Thanks to Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> that came up with the idea
> of exploring tweaking of the work queue's within a similar discussion.
>
> Fixes: a82dfd33d1237 ("wifi: rtw88: Add common USB chip support")
> Signed-off-by: Petter Mabacker <petter.mabacker@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/usb.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/usb.c
> index 44a5fafb9905..bfe0845528ec 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/usb.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/usb.c
> @@ -716,7 +716,7 @@ static int rtw_usb_init_rx(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev)
> struct rtw_usb *rtwusb = rtw_get_usb_priv(rtwdev);
> int i;
>
> - rtwusb->rxwq = create_singlethread_workqueue("rtw88_usb: rx wq");
> + rtwusb->rxwq = alloc_workqueue("rtw88_usb: rx wq", WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_HIGHPRI, 0);
> if (!rtwusb->rxwq) {
> rtw_err(rtwdev, "failed to create RX work queue\n");
> return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -750,7 +750,7 @@ static int rtw_usb_init_tx(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev)
> struct rtw_usb *rtwusb = rtw_get_usb_priv(rtwdev);
> int i;
>
> - rtwusb->txwq = create_singlethread_workqueue("rtw88_usb: tx wq");
> + rtwusb->txwq = alloc_workqueue("rtw88_usb: tx wq", WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_HIGHPRI, 0);
> if (!rtwusb->txwq) {
> rtw_err(rtwdev, "failed to create TX work queue\n");
> return -ENOMEM;
Should this workqueue be ordered or not? Please check Tejun's patchset
about using ordered queues:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230421025046.4008499-1-tj@xxxxxxxxxx/
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
