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

[Kalle Valo]

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.

>>> +enum nl80211_he_ru_alloc
>>> ath12k_mac_he_ru_tones_to_nl80211_he_ru_alloc(u16 ru_tones)
>>> +{
>>> +	enum nl80211_he_ru_alloc ret;
>>> +
>>> +	switch (ru_tones) {
>>> +	case 26:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_26;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case 52:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_52;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case 106:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_106;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case 242:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_242;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case 484:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_484;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case 996:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_996;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	case (996 * 2):
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_2x996;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	default:
>>> +		ret = NL80211_RATE_INFO_HE_RU_ALLOC_26;
>>> +		break;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	return ret;
>>> +}
>> How does this function compare to
>> ath12k_he_ru_tones_to_nl80211_he_ru_alloc()?
>> 
>
> ath12k_mac_he_ru_tones_to_nl80211_he_ru_alloc() is different from
> ath12k_he_ru_tones_to_nl80211_he_ru_alloc().
>
> the logic of ath12k_he_ru_tones_to_nl80211_he_ru_alloc() is

Sure, I can read C. But _why_ do we have two very similar but still
different functions. That looks fishy to me.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches