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

[Lingbo Kong]

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 found that ab->base_lock is used in a lot of places in ath12k, so it's 
complicated to do performance analysis in here.

Do you have any suggestions? I would appreciate your suggestions:)

/lingbo kong

>>>> +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.
>