All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar@codeaurora.org>
To: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	Rakesh Pillai <pillair@codeaurora.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org,
	dianders@chromium.org, evgreen@chromium.org, kuba@kernel.org,
	davem@davemloft.net, kvalo@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/7] ath10k: Add support to process rx packet in thread
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 23:09:49 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cd705bfc39721d5738fe1ee3d806a131@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1f2726ff-8ba9-5278-0ec6-b80be475ea98@nbd.name>

On 2020-07-22 06:00, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2020-07-22 14:55, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 14:27 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm considering testing a different approach (with mt76 initially):
>>> - Add a mac80211 rx function that puts processed skbs into a list
>>> instead of handing them to the network stack directly.
>> 
>> Would this be *after* all the mac80211 processing, i.e. in place of 
>> the
>> rx-up-to-stack?
> Yes, it would run all the rx handlers normally and then put the
> resulting skbs into a list instead of calling netif_receive_skb or
> napi_gro_frags.
> 
Felix,

This seems like split & batch processing. In past (ath9k), we observed 
some
behavioral differences between netif_rx and netif_receive_skb. The 
intermediate
queue in netif_rx changed not just performance but also time sensitive 
application
data. Agree that wireless stack processing might be heavier than 
ethernet packet
processing. If the hardware supports rx decap offload, NAPI processing 
shouldn't be
an issue. right?

-Rajkumar

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar@codeaurora.org>
To: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org,
	dianders@chromium.org, Rakesh Pillai <pillair@codeaurora.org>,
	evgreen@chromium.org, kuba@kernel.org,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	davem@davemloft.net, kvalo@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/7] ath10k: Add support to process rx packet in thread
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 23:09:49 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cd705bfc39721d5738fe1ee3d806a131@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1f2726ff-8ba9-5278-0ec6-b80be475ea98@nbd.name>

On 2020-07-22 06:00, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2020-07-22 14:55, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 14:27 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm considering testing a different approach (with mt76 initially):
>>> - Add a mac80211 rx function that puts processed skbs into a list
>>> instead of handing them to the network stack directly.
>> 
>> Would this be *after* all the mac80211 processing, i.e. in place of 
>> the
>> rx-up-to-stack?
> Yes, it would run all the rx handlers normally and then put the
> resulting skbs into a list instead of calling netif_receive_skb or
> napi_gro_frags.
> 
Felix,

This seems like split & batch processing. In past (ath9k), we observed 
some
behavioral differences between netif_rx and netif_receive_skb. The 
intermediate
queue in netif_rx changed not just performance but also time sensitive 
application
data. Agree that wireless stack processing might be heavier than 
ethernet packet
processing. If the hardware supports rx decap offload, NAPI processing 
shouldn't be
an issue. right?

-Rajkumar

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-23  6:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-21 17:14 [RFC 0/7] Add support to process rx packets in thread Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14 ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 1/7] mac80211: Add check for napi handle before WARN_ON Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-22 12:56   ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-22 12:56     ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-23 18:26     ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-23 18:26       ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-23 20:06       ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-23 20:06         ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-24  6:21         ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-24  6:21           ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-26 16:19         ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-26 16:19           ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-30 12:40           ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-30 12:40             ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 2/7] ath10k: Add support to process rx packet in thread Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 21:53   ` Rajkumar Manoharan
2020-07-21 21:53     ` Rajkumar Manoharan
2020-07-22 12:27     ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-22 12:27       ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-22 12:55       ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-22 12:55         ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-22 13:00         ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-22 13:00           ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-23  6:09           ` Rajkumar Manoharan [this message]
2020-07-23  6:09             ` Rajkumar Manoharan
2021-03-22 23:57           ` Ben Greear
2021-03-22 23:57             ` Ben Greear
2021-03-23  1:20             ` Brian Norris
2021-03-23  1:20               ` Brian Norris
2021-03-23  3:01               ` Ben Greear
2021-03-23  3:01                 ` Ben Greear
2021-03-23  7:45                 ` Felix Fietkau
2021-03-23  7:45                   ` Felix Fietkau
2021-03-25  9:45                   ` Rakesh Pillai
2021-03-25  9:45                     ` Rakesh Pillai
2021-03-25 10:33                     ` Felix Fietkau
2021-03-25 10:33                       ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-23 18:25     ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-23 18:25       ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-24 23:11       ` Jacob Keller
2020-07-24 23:11         ` Jacob Keller
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 3/7] ath10k: Add module param to enable rx thread Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 4/7] ath10k: Do not exhaust budget on process tx completion Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 5/7] ath10k: Handle the rx packet processing in thread Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 6/7] ath10k: Add deliver to stack from thread context Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 7/7] ath10k: Handle rx thread suspend and resume Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-23 23:06   ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-23 23:06     ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-24  6:19     ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-24  6:19       ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:25 ` [RFC 0/7] Add support to process rx packets in thread Andrew Lunn
2020-07-21 17:25   ` Andrew Lunn
2020-07-21 18:05   ` Florian Fainelli
2020-07-21 18:05     ` Florian Fainelli
2020-07-23 18:21     ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-23 18:21       ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-23 19:02       ` Florian Fainelli
2020-07-23 19:02         ` Florian Fainelli
2020-07-24  6:20         ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-24  6:20           ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-24 22:28           ` Florian Fainelli
2020-07-24 22:28             ` Florian Fainelli
2020-07-22  9:12   ` David Laight
2020-07-22  9:12     ` David Laight
2020-07-25  8:16     ` Hillf Danton
2020-07-25 10:38       ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-25 10:38         ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-25 12:25         ` Hillf Danton
2020-07-25 14:08         ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-25 14:08           ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-25 14:57           ` Hillf Danton
2020-07-25 15:41             ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-25 15:41               ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-26 11:16               ` David Laight
2020-07-26 11:16                 ` David Laight
2020-07-28 16:59                 ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-28 16:59                   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-29  1:34                   ` Hillf Danton
2020-07-25 17:57       ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-25 17:57         ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-26  1:22         ` Hillf Danton
2020-07-26  8:10           ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-26  8:10             ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-26  8:32             ` Hillf Danton
2020-07-26  8:59               ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-26  8:59                 ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-22 16:20   ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-07-22 16:20     ` Jakub Kicinski

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=cd705bfc39721d5738fe1ee3d806a131@codeaurora.org \
    --to=rmanohar@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=evgreen@chromium.org \
    --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nbd@nbd.name \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pillair@codeaurora.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.