On 9/8/23 13:48, Kalle Valo wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > <Prasurjya.Rohansaikia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> <Prasurjya.Rohansaikia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> From: Prasurjya Rohan Saikia <prasurjya.rohansaikia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Added an algorithm to backoff the Tx Task when low memory scenario is >>> triggered at firmware. During high data transfer from host, the firmware >>> runs out of VMM memory, which is used to hold the frames from the host. >>> So added flow control to delay the transmit from host side when there is >>> not enough space to accomodate frames in firmware side. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Prasurjya Rohan Saikia <prasurjya.rohansaikia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> [...] >> >>> - } while (ret == WILC_VMM_ENTRY_FULL_RETRY && !wl->close); >>> + if (ret != WILC_VMM_ENTRY_FULL_RETRY) >>> + break; >>> + /* Back off from sending packets for some time. >>> + * schedule_timeout will allow RX task to run and free >>> + * buffers. Setting state to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE will >>> + * put the thread back to CPU running queue when it's >>> + * signaled even if 'timeout' isn't elapsed. This gives >>> + * faster chance for reserved SK buffers to be freed >>> + */ >>> + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); >>> + schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies >>> + (TX_BACKOFF_WEIGHT_MS)); >>> + } while (!wl->close); >> >> Why not msleep_interruptible()? >> >> Thanks you for your suggestion. However, I decided to proceed with >> schedule_timeout_interruptible() after testing and I will resubmit the patch. > > You need to provide more information than that. > > Please quote your emails properly and don't send HTML emails, our lists > automaticall drop all HTML mail. Ohh, somehow this configuration was missed out. I have now updated the email client configuration. Also, apologies I didn't provide more information earlier. There are no specific reasons to use schedule_timeout_interruptible(). Since schedule_timeout_interruptible() wrapped the same functionality, I don't think there's any issue if we use msleep_interruptible() instead as it also provides the same functionality. I have tested with msleep_interrruptible() and its working fine too. So, I'll be submitting a patch using it.
