On 12/06/2010 12:42 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 12:22:26PM -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
On 12/06/2010 12:11 PM, Björn Smedman wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Ben Greear<greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
With 16 properly configured non-encrypted stations, running with
wpa-supplicant
with netlink driver& sharing scan results, the interfaces quickly
associate.
However, I do continue to see DMA warnings such as these (I had picked up my
portable phone, and it knocked all the interfaces offline ..here
they are coming back up after I hung up the phone).
Is there some theory as to why using multiple interfaces cause so many
problems with DMA?
Seems pretty directly related to channel changes and/or resets, and exacerbated
by other interfaces sending data while another is scanning, for instance.
Other issues we've found in the past have been various races that you wouldn't
normally see with a single VIF.
Right, there might be some other hot path we need to lock around over.
Not sure what it could be though we should be locking stopping RX
over resets already though. These should all be atomic, in fact
starting TX too IIRC, hence the name change of the lock to be
specific to the PCU together. There may be other PCU changes
we may need to contend against.
Maybe the hardware/firmware guys could give us some clues as to what
types of things can cause stopping RMA to fail? Maybe that could
point us to what might be racing with the attempts to stop RMA?
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
