[rt2x00-users] [RFC] rt2x00: Use tasklets for rt2x00usb

Mark Asselstine asselsm at gmail.com
Thu Jul 22 20:58:56 AEST 2010


On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Ivo Van Doorn <ivdoorn at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Helmut Schaa
> <helmut.schaa at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag 22 Juli 2010 schrieb Ivo Van Doorn:
>>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Helmut Schaa
>>> <helmut.schaa at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> > Am Donnerstag 22 Juli 2010 schrieb Mark Asselstine:
>>> >> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ivo van Doorn <ivdoorn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > This updates the rt2x00usb driver to use tasklets for handling interrupts.
>>> >> > This simplifies the code in rt2x00lib since it no longer needs to check if the
>>> >> > device is USB or PCI to decide which mac80211 function should be used.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > This patch is work in progress, but I would to hear if there are any comments
>>> >> > on the approach taken.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Signed-off-by: Ivo van Doorn <IvDoorn at gmail.com>
>>> >> > ---
>>> >>
>>> >> Ivo,  I know it has been far too long since I have done any work on
>>> >> this project and I am far from an expert so feel free hit the delete
>>> >> key... that being said. Tasklets are used less and less in the kernel
>>> >> as there are now other mechanisms which offer the same flexibility.
>>> >> Seeing this trend makes me feel rt2x00 is moving in the opposite
>>> >> direction. Have you looked at threaded interrupts (which are now in
>>> >> mainline) as an alternative? If I can get my development environment
>>> >> setup quickly I will try to do better then these few words and
>>> >> actually attempt an implementation if you think it is worth it.
>>> >
>>> > I agree. We switched all rt2x00 PCI drivers to use threaded interrupts
>>> > already. However, since the USB versions don't have something like an
>>> > interrupt handler I don't know how we could move the rx/tx handling
>>> > into process context without introducing delays (for example when using a
>>> > workqueue) and concurrency.
>>>
>>> The reason why I made the switch was in preparation for a different patch,
>>> which actually needs a short delay between the URB callback function and
>>> the processing of the data. And a side-benefit is that it manages to clean some
>>> stuff up in the TX/RX processing which is also nice. :)
>>
>> Ok, understood. I don't know what you're working on right now ;)
>
> Oh, lets say that I am working on one of your ideas regarding rt2800usb
> and rate control mechanisms :P
>
>> but the
>> tasklet approach should be fine (in regard to the mac80211 interaction at
>> least).
>
> Well I just did some testing and rt2800usb needs to use a mutex, so
> tasklets aren't the right tool (Doh!). I'll convert it to the workqueue :)
>

Yep that will do it. I see now how my suggestion of threaded
interrupts was incompatible with the USB implementation.

Mark

> Ivo
>




More information about the users mailing list