On 11/21/24 12:11 PM, Korenblit, Miriam Rachel wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2024 23:26 To: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] wifi: iwlwifi: Fix eMLSR band comparison. From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Do not make assumptions about what band 'a' or 'b' are on. And add new reason code for when eMLSR is disabled due to band. Signed-off-by: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/link.c | 13 ++++++++++--- drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mvm.h | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/link.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/link.c index bb3de07bc6be..f3fb37fec8a8 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/link.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/link.c @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ HOW(EXIT_LOW_RSSI) \ HOW(EXIT_COEX) \ HOW(EXIT_BANDWIDTH) \ + HOW(EXIT_BAND) \ HOW(EXIT_CSA) \ HOW(EXIT_LINK_USAGE) @@ -750,11 +751,17 @@ bool iwl_mvm_mld_valid_link_pair(struct ieee80211_vif *vif, iwl_mvm_esr_disallowed_with_link(mvm, vif, b, false)) return false; - if (a->chandef->width != b->chandef->width || - !(a->chandef->chan->band == NL80211_BAND_6GHZ && - b->chandef->chan->band == NL80211_BAND_5GHZ)) + if (a->chandef->width != b->chandef->width) ret |= IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_BANDWIDTH; + /* Only supports 5g and 6g bands at the moment */ + if (((a->chandef->chan->band != NL80211_BAND_6GHZ) && + (a->chandef->chan->band != NL80211_BAND_5GHZ)) || + ((b->chandef->chan->band != NL80211_BAND_6GHZ) && + (b->chandef->chan->band != NL80211_BAND_5GHZ)) || + (a->chandef->chan->band == b->chandef->chan->band)) + ret |= IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_BAND; + if (ret) { IWL_DEBUG_INFO(mvm, "Links %d and %d are not a valid pair for EMLSR, a-chwidth: %d b: %d band-a: %d band-b: %d\n", diff --gita/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mvm.h b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mvm.h index ac4e135ed91b..22bec9ca46bb 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mvm.h +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mvm.h @@ -368,6 +368,7 @@ struct iwl_mvm_vif_link_info { * preventing the enablement of EMLSR * @IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_CSA: CSA happened, so exit EMLSR * @IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_LINK_USAGE: Exit EMLSR due to low tpt on secondary link + * @IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_BAND: Exit EMLSR due to incompatible Bands */ enum iwl_mvm_esr_state { IWL_MVM_ESR_BLOCKED_PREVENTION = 0x1, @@ -382,6 +383,7 @@ enum iwl_mvm_esr_state { IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_BANDWIDTH = 0x80000, IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_CSA = 0x100000, IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_LINK_USAGE = 0x200000, + IWL_MVM_ESR_EXIT_BAND = 0x400000, }; #define IWL_MVM_BLOCK_ESR_REASONS 0xffff -- 2.42.0Hi Ben. It is actually required that a (the better link) will be on 6 GHz and b on 5 GHz Regarding the new exit reason, it is not really needed as we can easily differentiate between the cases (from other logs)
Hello Miri, I tested this patch, and it fixed problems for me when I ran a test that created interfering traffic on 5ghz and then later on 6Ghz. I expected eMLSR mode to stay active no matter where the interfering traffic existed. With this patch, and a few others I posted, the be200 then works fairly well. 6Ghz is not always better, for instance in case where it is congested with external traffic. Can you please let me know *why* you think the better link must always be 6ghz in this case? Thanks, Ben
NACK. Thanks, Miri
-- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
