[PATCH] ath10k: add modparam 'hw_csum' to make HW checksum configurable

[Peter Oh]

On 12/17/2015 02:57 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2015-12-17 23:01, Peter Oh wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 03:59 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-17 00:50, Peter Oh wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2015 01:54 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-12-16 22:19, Peter Oh wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/16/2015 12:53 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2015-12-16 21:46, Peter Oh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/16/2015 12:35 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2015-12-16 21:29, Peter Oh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/2015 10:27 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-12-16 19:20, Peter Oh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Some hardwares such as QCA988X and QCA99X0 doesn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>> capability of checksum offload when frame formats are not
>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable for it such as Mesh frame.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hence add a module parameter, hw_csum, to make checksum offload
>>>>>>>>>>>> configurable during module registration time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Oh <poh at qca.qualcomm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> How about instead of inventing yet another crappy module parameter, you
>>>>>>>>>>> call skb_checksum_help() in the driver in cases where the hardware is
>>>>>>>>>>> unable to offload the checksum calculation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That way the user has to worry about less driver specific hackery ;)
>>>>>>>>>> That will be good option for hardware not supporting HW checksum, but I
>>>>>>>>>> mind that using the function will add more workload per every packet on
>>>>>>>>>> critical data path when HW supports checksum resulting in throughput down.
>>>>>>>>> I didn't mean calling it for every single frame in the data path.
>>>>>>>>> What I'm suggesting is calling it selectively only for mesh frames, or
>>>>>>>>> any other frames that the hardware cannot offload, and leaving the rest
>>>>>>>>> for the hardware to process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There should be no performance difference between disabling checksum
>>>>>>>>> offload and calling skb_checksum_help from the driver.
>>>>>>>> To call it selectively for Mesh frame or interface, we need to add it on
>>>>>>>> mac80211 layer such as ieee80211_build_hdr() since driver layer does not
>>>>>>>> care the interface type in data path.
>>>>>>> No need to change mac80211 - it only touches the headers, and
>>>>>>> skb_checksum_help does not care about that. The skb has enough
>>>>>>> information for it to find the right range to calculate the checksum and
>>>>>>> the place to store it.
>>>>>> If mentioned to use the function to mesh frame only without touching
>>>>>> mac80211, then how do you suggest it to apply it only to mesh frame
>>>>>> without interfere other data frames?
>>>>>> Can you share your example?
>>>>> It's trivial - in ath10k_tx you do this:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_MESH_POINT &&
>>>>>        skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_PARTIAL)
>>>>> 	skb_checksum_help(skb);
>>>> Thank you Felix for the quick response.
>>>> I agree on your user experience opinion,
>>>> but what do you think when ath10k has a new chip supporting HW checksum
>>>> for Mesh?
>>> Then you simply update the checks. What's the big deal?
>> keep adding condition to such data path is not a good option.
>> I also considered again about user experiences and reached to that this
>> patch won't disturb user experience since the products will ship with
>> proper module settings. for instance the parameter will be turned on if
>> product support it other wise will be turned off as they shipped, so
>> that users don't need to touch it.
> I think the point you were missing is the one that there is no such
> thing as a proper setting for this module parameter, since it doesn't
> really depend much on the hardware or the product, but on the wifi mode
> that you are using.
>
>> In addition, for enterprise customers, they do care even a very small
>> performance drop or enhancement especially when they are running BMT
>> among vendors.
>> So we need to avoid adding extra codes in data path in my opinion.
> The regular data tx path already checks ar->dev_flags to decide whether
> to use raw mode or not. This means that this part of the data structure
> is already cached. The vif type is also cached, since it's accessed in
> the same part of the function.
> Because of that, the impact of adding an extra check even for a hardware
> capability will be so low, that I'm pretty sure you will not be able to
> measure it. And even if it were measurable, it's probably quite easy to
> find a few places to optimize
>
> I find the tradeoff you are making very odd: For users that don't know
> about the module parameter (depending on the default value) it either
> just randomly doesn't work in mesh or always runs with degraded
> performance. All this to save adding a check that will be completely
> irrelevant for performance, since it won't result in any extra cache
> stalls (which are the typical bottleneck in the data path).
Thank you for your comments and ideas.
I'll spend more time to lead better solution based on you & Michal's 
feedback.
> - Felix
Peter