[Make-wifi-fast] [RFC v2 1/4] mac80211: Add TXQ scheduling API

Rajkumar Manoharan rmanohar at codeaurora.org
Thu Jul 12 20:33:54 EDT 2018

On 2018-07-12 16:13, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar at codeaurora.org> writes:
>> On 2018-07-11 13:48, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>> Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar at codeaurora.org> writes:
>>>> On 2018-07-09 09:37, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> +/**

>>> Erm, how would this prevent an infinite loop? With this scheme, at 
>>> some
>>> point, ieee80211_next_txq() removes the last txq from activeq, and
>>> returns that. Then, when it is called again the next time the driver
>>> loops, it's back to the first case (activeq empty, waitq non-empty); 
>>> so
>>> it'll move waitq back as activeq and start over... Only the driver
>>> really knows when it is starting a logical "loop through all active
>>> TXQs".
>> Oops.. My bad.. The idea is that ieee80211_next_txq process txq from
>> activeq only and keep processed txqs separately. Having single list
>> eventually needs tracking mechanism. The point is that once activeq
>> becomes empty, splice waitq list and return NULL. So that driver can
>> break from the loop.
>> ieee80211_next_txq
>>       - if activeq empty,
>>            - move waitq list into activeq
>>            - return NULL
>>       - if activeq not empty
>>            - fetch appropriate txq from activeq
>>            - remove txq from activeq list.
>>       - If txq found, return txq else return NULL
> Right, so this would ensure the driver only sees each TXQ once *if it
> keeps looping*. But it doesn't necessarily; if the hardware queues fill
> up, for instance, it might abort earlier. In that case it would need to
> signal mac80211 that it is done for now, which is equivalent to
> signalling when it starts a scheduler round.
Hmm... I thought driver will call ieee80211_schedule_txq when it runs 
of hardware descriptor and break the loop. The serving txq will be added
back to head of activeq list. no?

>>> Also, for airtime fairness, the queues are not scheduled strictly
>>> round-robin, so the dual-list scheme wouldn't work there either...
>> As you know, ath10k driver will operate in two tx modes (push-only,
>> push-pull). These modes will be switched dynamically depends on
>> firmware load or resource availability. In push-pull mode, firmware
>> will query N number of frames for set of STA, TID.
> Ah, so it will look up the TXQ without looping through the list of
> pending queues at all? Didn't realise that is what it's doing; yeah,
> that would be problematic for airtime fairness :)
>> So the driver will directly dequeue N number of frames from given txq.
>> In this case txq ordering alone wont help. I am planning to add below
>> changes in exiting API and add new API ieee80211_reorder_txq.
>> ieee80211_txq_get_depth
>>       - return deficit status along with frm_cnt
>> ieee80211_reorder_txq
>>       - if txq deficit > 0
>>             - return;
>>       - if txq is last
>>              - return
>>       - delete txq from list
>>       - move it to tail
>>       - update deficit by quantum
>> ath10k_htt_rx_tx_fetch_ind
>>       - get txq deficit status
>>       - if txq deficit > 0
>>             - dequeue skb
>>       - else if deficit < 0
>>             - return NULL
>> Please share your thoughts.
> Hmm, not sure exactly how this would work; seems a little complicated?
> Also, I'd rather if drivers were completely oblivious to the deficit;
> that is a bit of an implementation detail...
Agree.. Initially I thought of adding deficit check in 
But It will be overhead of taking activeq_lock for every skbs. Perhaps
it can be renamed as allowed_to_dequeue instead of deficit.

> We could have an ieee80211_txq_may_pull(); or maybe just have
> ieee80211_tx_dequeue() return NULL if the deficit is negative?
As I said earlier, checking deficit for every skb will be an overhead.
It should be done once before accessing txq.

> the reasonable thing for the driver to do, then, would be to ask
> ieee80211_next_txq() for another TXQ to pull from if the current one
> doesn't work for whatever reason.
> Would that work for push-pull mode?
Not really. Driver shouldn't send other txq data instead of asked one.
In MU-MIMO, firmware will query N packets from given set of {STA,TID}.
So the driver not supposed to send other txq's data.


More information about the Make-wifi-fast mailing list