On 2018-06-15 17:55, Johannes Berg wrote:
Why did you change to rhashtable?
Hi Johannes,
I wanted to give a try with rhashtable and get your thoughts, since it gave below flexibility to original patch, 1. avoids creating static memory when userspace starts accumulating stats. 36 rate entries were used in original patch based on 10 (MCS count) * 3 (entries per mcs)+ 6 escape entries, which would also increase with HE supported now. 2. avoids restricting to only 3 entries per MCS in the table. Using hashtable gave flexibility to add/read the table dynamically based on encoded rate key.

That seems very strange, since we explicitly want to limit the number of
entries, but rhashtable will grow/shrink as required.
Yes you're right ,it might grow but, as per this patch when Packet count is greater than 65000 in an exntry or when the number of rate table/hashtable entries exceed a count of MAX_RATE_TABLE_ELEMS (10 was used in this patch), the complete table is dumped to userspace and new stats starts getting collected in a new table after we flush the old one. Hence with this approach also the memory consumption is limited similar to the original patch.

I think I liked my approach better since it allowed us to clearly limit
the memory consumption for this.
Sure Johannes, Could you please let me know if i can rebase your patch and send it(with corresponding additional entries for HE MCS). Also as mentioned above this patch also limits the memory consumption when the rate table size exceeds MAX_RATE_TABLE_ELEMS.

johannes

Reply via email to