[PATCH v4 1/3] wifi: ath12k: report station mode transmit rate

[Lingbo Kong]

On 2024/6/5 14:31, Lingbo Kong wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024/4/26 19:21, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Lingbo Kong <quic_lingbok at quicinc.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2024/4/26 0:54, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>>> Lingbo Kong <quic_lingbok at quicinc.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> +static void ath12k_dp_tx_update_txcompl(struct ath12k *ar, struct
>>>>> hal_tx_status *ts)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    struct ath12k_base *ab = ar->ab;
>>>>> +    struct ath12k_peer *peer;
>>>>> +    struct ath12k_sta *arsta;
>>>>> +    struct ieee80211_sta *sta;
>>>>> +    u16 rate;
>>>>> +    u8 rate_idx = 0;
>>>>> +    int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    spin_lock_bh(&ab->base_lock);
>>>>
>>>> Did you analyse how this function, and especially taking the
>>>> base_lock,
>>>> affects performance?
>>>
>>> The base_lock is used here because of the need to look for peers based
>>> on the ts->peer_id when calling ath12k_peer_find_by_id() function,
>>> which i think might affect performance.
>>>
>>> Do i need to run a throughput test?
>>
>> Ok, so to answer my question: no, you didn't do any performance
>> analysis. Throughput test might not be enough, for example the driver
>> can be used on slower systems and running the test on a fast CPU might
>> not reveal any problem. A proper analysis would be much better.
>>
> 
> Hi, kalle,
> I did a simple performance analysis of the ath12k_dp_tx_update_txcompl() 
> function on slower systems.
> 
> Firstly, i use perf tool to set dynamic tracepoints in 
> ath12k_dp_tx_complete_msdu() function, and then used the command of 
> "iperf -c ip address -w 4M -n 1G -i 1" to do traffic test.
> 
> During this process, use ./perf record -a -g to detect the performace of 
> the system.
> 
> Finally, compare the results with and without this patch.
> 
> without this patch
> ./perf report output
> children    self    command        symbol
> 7.28%       0.08%      ksoftirqd/0 ath12k_dp_tx_complete_msdu
> 5.96%      0.03%      swapper     ath12k_dp_tx_complete_msdu
> 
> iperf output
> [  1] 0.0000-62.6712 sec  1.00 GBytes   137 Mbits/sec
> 
> with this patch
> children    self       command         symbol
> 7.42%       0.08%      ksoftirqd/0  ath12k_dp_tx_complete_msdu
> 6.32%      0.03%      swapper      ath12k_dp_tx_complete_msdu
> 
> iperf output
> [  1] 0.0000-62.6732 sec  1.00 GBytes   137 Mbits/sec
> 
> As can be seen from the table above, with this patch, the CPU time 
> percentage will increase by 0.5%.
> 
> So, i think applying this patch will definitely have an impact on system 
> performance, but the impact is not that big and i think it can be ignored:)
> 
> Best regards
> Lingbo Kong

Hi, kalle
do you have any comments regarding the above content?:)

best regards
Lingbo Kong