On 10/26/2010 03:17 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ben Greear<greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/26/2010 03:03 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Ben Greear<greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 10/26/2010 01:40 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Here is some more PCU locking enhancements I tested today
while trying to resolve the WARN() that happens when we
try to stop RX DMA and fail. While working on that I figured
I'd work on the TX DMA stuff too, here's a shot at it. I
can no longer get TX / RX DMA rants, please test and let
me know if you do. I only tried some basic testing like
rmmoding while scannign, which typicallly produced some
errors. Now I don't get squat.
Ben if you can test wit your super proprietary application
that'd be great.
This also simplifies locking considerably.
This doesn't break suspend so I'm happy. It also depends
on the last RX DMA fixes I had posted earlier. If you'd
like to get an all-in-one patch of all my patches pending
you can wget this file and git am it:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/mcgrof/patches/tmp/pending-mcgrof-2010-10-26-v1.patch
sha1sum: 874a3cc1a57f7e26ad191cd7b5045315f94c5823
I have done some initial testing on the combined patch on top of today's
wireless-testing tree. I also have the memory-barrier patch applied to
ath9k, as that is still not upstream. I have no idea if it has any
affect
or not (I'm on x86..seems that wmb() stuff was mostly for other
platforms?).
So far, it is showing zero problems, certainly no memory poison issues.
The wireless-testing tree has some lockdep warning related to a mouse
driver
that disables lockdep early, so it's possible there are lockdep issues
waiting.
I will let this test run for a while, but it already looks more stable
than before, so:
Tested-by: Ben Greear<greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Awesome! Thanks for testing. So how about the TX dma rants, do you
still get those?
I've seen no rants at all.
Fucking awesome!
I'm using my standard 130 STAs
I love how now 130 STAs are "standard" for ath9k tests :)
I dropped it down to 30 STAs so that all could associate and
be stable with my AP. I set up a tcp stream running as fast as it could between
two virtual STAs. It ran about 9Mbps bi-directional overnight
with no obvious problems.
One way or another, I will probably end up backporting this to 2.6.36,
so it wouldn't bother me at all to see these changes show up in stable.
We'll keep testing various scenarios in the meantime...
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
