Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 05/13] ath9k_htc: add rx header converter to make it usable by ath9k
Am 03.02.2014 13:07, schrieb Felix Fietkau:
> On 2014-02-03 12:22, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>> Am 03.02.2014 03:09, schrieb Sujith Manoharan:
>>> Oleksij Rempel wrote:
+ rx_stats = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ath_rx_status), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (unlikely(rx_stats == NULL)) {
+ ath_err(common, "rx_stats allocation filed!\n");
+ goto err_nofree;
+ }
+ rx_status_htc_to_ath(rx_stats, &rxbuf->rxstatus);
+
>>
>>> This seems a little expensive, since this would happen for every packet,
>>> and a memcpy is already done earlier, for storing the RX status in
>>> rxbuf->rxstatus. Instead of using 'struct ath_htc_rx_status' in
>>> 'struct ath9k_htc_rxbuf', why can't 'struct ath_rx_status' be used ?
>>> The values can be converted and stored directly, avoiding this alloc.
>>
>> Do you mean kzalloc or converter?
>> then memcpy is removed by patch 12/13. Converter is not effective but it
>> should prevent from confusions. At least until FW use same flags and
>> struct ath_rx_status do.
>> But i'm open for other ideas too.
> You should at least keep rx_stats on stack instead of using kzalloc,
> that would make it much faster.
You right, i'll do it.
Beside what is the smallest stack size in kernel i need to count on?
--
Regards,
Oleksij
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 05/13] ath9k_htc: add rx header converter to make it usable by ath9k
On 2014-02-03 12:22, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Am 03.02.2014 03:09, schrieb Sujith Manoharan:
>> Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>>> + rx_stats = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ath_rx_status), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (unlikely(rx_stats == NULL)) {
>>> + ath_err(common, "rx_stats allocation filed!\n");
>>> + goto err_nofree;
>>> + }
>>> + rx_status_htc_to_ath(rx_stats, &rxbuf->rxstatus);
>>> +
>
>> This seems a little expensive, since this would happen for every packet,
>> and a memcpy is already done earlier, for storing the RX status in
>> rxbuf->rxstatus. Instead of using 'struct ath_htc_rx_status' in
>> 'struct ath9k_htc_rxbuf', why can't 'struct ath_rx_status' be used ?
>> The values can be converted and stored directly, avoiding this alloc.
>
> Do you mean kzalloc or converter?
> then memcpy is removed by patch 12/13. Converter is not effective but it
> should prevent from confusions. At least until FW use same flags and
> struct ath_rx_status do.
> But i'm open for other ideas too.
You should at least keep rx_stats on stack instead of using kzalloc,
that would make it much faster.
- Felix
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 05/13] ath9k_htc: add rx header converter to make it usable by ath9k
Am 03.02.2014 03:09, schrieb Sujith Manoharan:
> Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>> +rx_stats = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ath_rx_status), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +if (unlikely(rx_stats == NULL)) {
>> +ath_err(common, "rx_stats allocation filed!\n");
>> +goto err_nofree;
>> +}
>> +rx_status_htc_to_ath(rx_stats, &rxbuf->rxstatus);
>> +
> This seems a little expensive, since this would happen for every packet,
> and a memcpy is already done earlier, for storing the RX status in
> rxbuf->rxstatus. Instead of using 'struct ath_htc_rx_status' in
> 'struct ath9k_htc_rxbuf', why can't 'struct ath_rx_status' be used ?
> The values can be converted and stored directly, avoiding this alloc.
Do you mean kzalloc or converter?
then memcpy is removed by patch 12/13. Converter is not effective but it
should prevent from confusions. At least until FW use same flags and
struct ath_rx_status do.
But i'm open for other ideas too.
--
Regards,
Oleksij
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Re: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH 05/13] ath9k_htc: add rx header converter to make it usable by ath9k
Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> + rx_stats = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ath_rx_status), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (unlikely(rx_stats == NULL)) {
> + ath_err(common, "rx_stats allocation filed!\n");
> + goto err_nofree;
> + }
> + rx_status_htc_to_ath(rx_stats, &rxbuf->rxstatus);
> +
This seems a little expensive, since this would happen for every packet,
and a memcpy is already done earlier, for storing the RX status in
rxbuf->rxstatus. Instead of using 'struct ath_htc_rx_status' in
'struct ath9k_htc_rxbuf', why can't 'struct ath_rx_status' be used ?
The values can be converted and stored directly, avoiding this alloc.
Sujith
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
