| Message ID | 1584604406-15452-4-git-send-email-wright.feng@cypress.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Kalle Valo |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add AP isolate support and two modules parameters | expand |
+ Tejun - regarding alloc_workqueue usage On 3/19/2020 8:53 AM, Wright Feng wrote: > With setting sdio_wq_highpri=1 in module parameters, tasks submitted to > SDIO workqueue will put at the head of the queue and run immediately. > This parameter is for getting higher TX/RX throughput with SDIO bus. > > Signed-off-by: Wright Feng <wright.feng@cypress.com> > Signed-off-by: Chi-hsien Lin <chi-hsien.lin@cypress.com> > --- > .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c | 5 +++++ > .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.h | 2 ++ > .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 22 ++++++++++++++-------- > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > [...] > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c > index 3a08252..885e8bd 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c > @@ -4342,9 +4342,21 @@ struct brcmf_sdio *brcmf_sdio_probe(struct brcmf_sdio_dev *sdiodev) > bus->txminmax = BRCMF_TXMINMAX; > bus->tx_seq = SDPCM_SEQ_WRAP - 1; > > + /* attempt to attach to the dongle */ > + if (!(brcmf_sdio_probe_attach(bus))) { > + brcmf_err("brcmf_sdio_probe_attach failed\n"); > + goto fail; > + } > + > /* single-threaded workqueue */ > - wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, > - dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); > + if (sdiodev->settings->sdio_wq_highpri) { > + wq = alloc_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", > + WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_UNBOUND, > + 1, dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); So two things changed, 1) WQ_HIGHPRI flag added *and* 2) use allow_workqueue basically dropping __WQ_ORDERED. Not sure which one contributes to the behavior described in the commit message. Regards, Arend > + } else { > + wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, > + dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); > + } > if (!wq) { > brcmf_err("insufficient memory to create txworkqueue\n"); > goto fail;
Arend Van Spriel 於 3/19/2020 4:55 PM 寫道: > + Tejun - regarding alloc_workqueue usage > > On 3/19/2020 8:53 AM, Wright Feng wrote: >> With setting sdio_wq_highpri=1 in module parameters, tasks submitted to >> SDIO workqueue will put at the head of the queue and run immediately. >> This parameter is for getting higher TX/RX throughput with SDIO bus. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wright Feng <wright.feng@cypress.com> >> Signed-off-by: Chi-hsien Lin <chi-hsien.lin@cypress.com> >> --- >> .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c | 5 +++++ >> .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.h | 2 ++ >> .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 22 >> ++++++++++++++-------- >> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> > > [...] > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >> index 3a08252..885e8bd 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >> @@ -4342,9 +4342,21 @@ struct brcmf_sdio *brcmf_sdio_probe(struct >> brcmf_sdio_dev *sdiodev) >> bus->txminmax = BRCMF_TXMINMAX; >> bus->tx_seq = SDPCM_SEQ_WRAP - 1; >> + /* attempt to attach to the dongle */ >> + if (!(brcmf_sdio_probe_attach(bus))) { >> + brcmf_err("brcmf_sdio_probe_attach failed\n"); >> + goto fail; >> + } >> + >> /* single-threaded workqueue */ >> - wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, >> - dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); >> + if (sdiodev->settings->sdio_wq_highpri) { >> + wq = alloc_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", >> + WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_UNBOUND, >> + 1, dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); > > So two things changed, 1) WQ_HIGHPRI flag added *and* 2) use > allow_workqueue basically dropping __WQ_ORDERED. Not sure which one > contributes to the behavior described in the commit message. The combination of Unbound and max_active==1 implies ordered, so I suppose we don't need to set __WQ_ORDERED bit in flags. > Regards, > Arend > >> + } else { >> + wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, >> + dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); >> + } >> if (!wq) { >> brcmf_err("insufficient memory to create txworkqueue\n"); >> goto fail; >
On 3/20/2020 9:08 AM, Wright Feng wrote: > > > Arend Van Spriel 於 3/19/2020 4:55 PM 寫道: >> + Tejun - regarding alloc_workqueue usage >> >> On 3/19/2020 8:53 AM, Wright Feng wrote: >>> With setting sdio_wq_highpri=1 in module parameters, tasks submitted to >>> SDIO workqueue will put at the head of the queue and run immediately. >>> This parameter is for getting higher TX/RX throughput with SDIO bus. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Wright Feng <wright.feng@cypress.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Chi-hsien Lin <chi-hsien.lin@cypress.com> >>> --- >>> .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c | 5 +++++ >>> .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.h | 2 ++ >>> .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 22 >>> ++++++++++++++-------- >>> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> >> >> [...] >> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >>> index 3a08252..885e8bd 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >>> @@ -4342,9 +4342,21 @@ struct brcmf_sdio *brcmf_sdio_probe(struct >>> brcmf_sdio_dev *sdiodev) >>> bus->txminmax = BRCMF_TXMINMAX; >>> bus->tx_seq = SDPCM_SEQ_WRAP - 1; >>> + /* attempt to attach to the dongle */ >>> + if (!(brcmf_sdio_probe_attach(bus))) { >>> + brcmf_err("brcmf_sdio_probe_attach failed\n"); >>> + goto fail; >>> + } >>> + >>> /* single-threaded workqueue */ >>> - wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, >>> - dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); >>> + if (sdiodev->settings->sdio_wq_highpri) { >>> + wq = alloc_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", >>> + WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_UNBOUND, >>> + 1, dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); >> >> So two things changed, 1) WQ_HIGHPRI flag added *and* 2) use >> allow_workqueue basically dropping __WQ_ORDERED. Not sure which one >> contributes to the behavior described in the commit message. > > The combination of Unbound and max_active==1 implies ordered, so I > suppose we don't need to set __WQ_ORDERED bit in flags. My reason for asking was the idea to only determine flags in the if-statement and have following by one alloc_wq call, ie.: wq_flags = WQ_MEM_RECLAIM; if (sdio_wq_highpri) wq_flags |= WQ_HIGHPRI wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue(..., wq_flags,...); Regards, Arend
Arend Van Spriel 於 3/20/2020 4:18 PM 寫道: > On 3/20/2020 9:08 AM, Wright Feng wrote: >> >> >> Arend Van Spriel 於 3/19/2020 4:55 PM 寫道: >>> + Tejun - regarding alloc_workqueue usage >>> >>> On 3/19/2020 8:53 AM, Wright Feng wrote: >>>> With setting sdio_wq_highpri=1 in module parameters, tasks submitted to >>>> SDIO workqueue will put at the head of the queue and run immediately. >>>> This parameter is for getting higher TX/RX throughput with SDIO bus. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wright Feng <wright.feng@cypress.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chi-hsien Lin <chi-hsien.lin@cypress.com> >>>> --- >>>> .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c | 5 +++++ >>>> .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.h | 2 ++ >>>> .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c | 22 >>>> ++++++++++++++-------- >>>> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>> >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >>>> index 3a08252..885e8bd 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c >>>> @@ -4342,9 +4342,21 @@ struct brcmf_sdio *brcmf_sdio_probe(struct >>>> brcmf_sdio_dev *sdiodev) >>>> bus->txminmax = BRCMF_TXMINMAX; >>>> bus->tx_seq = SDPCM_SEQ_WRAP - 1; >>>> + /* attempt to attach to the dongle */ >>>> + if (!(brcmf_sdio_probe_attach(bus))) { >>>> + brcmf_err("brcmf_sdio_probe_attach failed\n"); >>>> + goto fail; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> /* single-threaded workqueue */ >>>> - wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, >>>> - dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); >>>> + if (sdiodev->settings->sdio_wq_highpri) { >>>> + wq = alloc_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", >>>> + WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_UNBOUND, >>>> + 1, dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); >>> >>> So two things changed, 1) WQ_HIGHPRI flag added *and* 2) use >>> allow_workqueue basically dropping __WQ_ORDERED. Not sure which one >>> contributes to the behavior described in the commit message. >> >> The combination of Unbound and max_active==1 implies ordered, so I >> suppose we don't need to set __WQ_ORDERED bit in flags. > > My reason for asking was the idea to only determine flags in the > if-statement and have following by one alloc_wq call, ie.: > > wq_flags = WQ_MEM_RECLAIM; > if (sdio_wq_highpri) > wq_flags |= WQ_HIGHPRI > wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue(..., wq_flags,...); > Yes, I also want to do that so, but the comment in inclues/linux/workqueue.h shows that "@flags: WQ_* flags (only WQ_FREEZABLE and WQ_MEM_RECLAIM are meaningful)" and "__WQ_ORDERED" and "__WQ_ORDERED_EXPLICITI" are for workqueue internal use. That's why I set WQ_HIGHPRI by alloc_workqueue which is also seen in other wireless drivers. > Regards, > Arend
Wright Feng <wright.feng@cypress.com> writes: > With setting sdio_wq_highpri=1 in module parameters, tasks submitted to > SDIO workqueue will put at the head of the queue and run immediately. > This parameter is for getting higher TX/RX throughput with SDIO bus. Why would someone want to disable this? Like in patch 2, please avoid adding new module parameters as much as possible.
Hello, On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 04:08:47PM +0800, Wright Feng wrote: > > So two things changed, 1) WQ_HIGHPRI flag added *and* 2) use > > allow_workqueue basically dropping __WQ_ORDERED. Not sure which one > > contributes to the behavior described in the commit message. > > The combination of Unbound and max_active==1 implies ordered, so I suppose > we don't need to set __WQ_ORDERED bit in flags. It doesn't on NUMA setups. If you need ordered execution, you need the flag. Thanks.
Tejun Heo 於 3/25/2020 2:23 AM 寫道: > Hello, > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 04:08:47PM +0800, Wright Feng wrote: >>> So two things changed, 1) WQ_HIGHPRI flag added *and* 2) use >>> allow_workqueue basically dropping __WQ_ORDERED. Not sure which one >>> contributes to the behavior described in the commit message. >> >> The combination of Unbound and max_active==1 implies ordered, so I suppose >> we don't need to set __WQ_ORDERED bit in flags. > > It doesn't on NUMA setups. If you need ordered execution, you need the flag. > > Thanks. > Hi Tejun, In kernel/workqueue.c, it helps set __WQ_ORDERED flag for the condition(Unbound && max_active == 1) to keep the previous behavior to avoid subtle breakages on NUMA. Does it mean we don't have to set the flags in alloc_workqueue? or I misunderstand something? If that's incorrect, would you please give me a hint how to set __WQ_ORDERED(internal use flag) and WQ_HIGHPRI flags at the same time? --- /* * Unbound && max_active == 1 used to imply ordered, which is no * longer the case on NUMA machines due to per-node pools. While * alloc_ordered_workqueue() is the right way to create an ordered * workqueue, keep the previous behavior to avoid subtle breakages * on NUMA. */ if ((flags & WQ_UNBOUND) && max_active == 1) flags |= __WQ_ORDERED; --- Regards, Wright
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:29:44PM +0800, Wright Feng wrote: > If that's incorrect, would you please give me a hint how to set > __WQ_ORDERED(internal use flag) and WQ_HIGHPRI flags at the same time? Wouldn't alloc_ordered_workqueue(NAME, WQ_HIGHPRI, ...) do what you want? Thanks.
On March 25, 2020 3:08:18 PM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:29:44PM +0800, Wright Feng wrote: >> If that's incorrect, would you please give me a hint how to set >> __WQ_ORDERED(internal use flag) and WQ_HIGHPRI flags at the same time? > > Wouldn't alloc_ordered_workqueue(NAME, WQ_HIGHPRI, ...) do what you want? That was my initial suggestion. Can WQ_HIGHPRI be used together with WQ_MEMRECLAIM? Regards, Arend
Arend Van Spriel 於 3/25/2020 10:53 PM 寫道: > On March 25, 2020 3:08:18 PM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:29:44PM +0800, Wright Feng wrote: >>> If that's incorrect, would you please give me a hint how to set >>> __WQ_ORDERED(internal use flag) and WQ_HIGHPRI flags at the same time? >> >> Wouldn't alloc_ordered_workqueue(NAME, WQ_HIGHPRI, ...) do what you want? > > That was my initial suggestion. Can WQ_HIGHPRI be used together with > WQ_MEMRECLAIM? > > Regards, > Arend I was trying do that, but the comment of alloc_oredered_workqueue shows that only WQ_FREEZABLE and WQ_MEM_RECLAIM are meaningful, so... I will measure the throughput with "alloc_ordered_workqueue(NAME, WQ_HIGHPRI, ...)" to see if WQ_HIGHPRI works with alloc_ordered_workqueue. Thanks for the suggestion. --- /** * alloc_ordered_workqueue - allocate an ordered workqueue * @fmt: printf format for the name of the workqueue * @flags: WQ_* flags (only WQ_FREEZABLE and WQ_MEM_RECLAIM are meaningful) * @args...: args for @fmt * ... */ --- Regards, Wright
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 03:53:43PM +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On March 25, 2020 3:08:18 PM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:29:44PM +0800, Wright Feng wrote: > > > If that's incorrect, would you please give me a hint how to set > > > __WQ_ORDERED(internal use flag) and WQ_HIGHPRI flags at the same time? > > > > Wouldn't alloc_ordered_workqueue(NAME, WQ_HIGHPRI, ...) do what you want? > > That was my initial suggestion. Can WQ_HIGHPRI be used together with > WQ_MEMRECLAIM? Yeah, they shouldn't interfere with each other. Thanks.
Hello, On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:06:33PM +0800, Wright Feng wrote: > I was trying do that, but the comment of alloc_oredered_workqueue shows that > only WQ_FREEZABLE and WQ_MEM_RECLAIM are meaningful, so... > > I will measure the throughput with "alloc_ordered_workqueue(NAME, > WQ_HIGHPRI, ...)" to see if WQ_HIGHPRI works with alloc_ordered_workqueue. > Thanks for the suggestion. > > --- > /** > * alloc_ordered_workqueue - allocate an ordered workqueue > * @fmt: printf format for the name of the workqueue > * @flags: WQ_* flags (only WQ_FREEZABLE and WQ_MEM_RECLAIM are meaningful) > * @args...: args for @fmt Yeah, I think the comment is outdated. If it doesn't work as expected, please let me know.
Tejun Heo 於 3/25/2020 11:12 PM 寫道: > Hello, > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:06:33PM +0800, Wright Feng wrote: >> I was trying do that, but the comment of alloc_oredered_workqueue shows that >> only WQ_FREEZABLE and WQ_MEM_RECLAIM are meaningful, so... >> >> I will measure the throughput with "alloc_ordered_workqueue(NAME, >> WQ_HIGHPRI, ...)" to see if WQ_HIGHPRI works with alloc_ordered_workqueue. >> Thanks for the suggestion. >> >> --- >> /** >> * alloc_ordered_workqueue - allocate an ordered workqueue >> * @fmt: printf format for the name of the workqueue >> * @flags: WQ_* flags (only WQ_FREEZABLE and WQ_MEM_RECLAIM are meaningful) >> * @args...: args for @fmt > > Yeah, I think the comment is outdated. If it doesn't work as expected, please > let me know. > It works as expected. With alloc_oredered_workqueue(..., WQ_HIGHPRI, ...), the nice value is -20 and throughput result with 43455(11ac) on 1 core 1.6 Ghz platform is Without WQ_HIGGPRI TX/RX: 293/301 (mbps) With WQ_HIGHPRI TX/RX: 293/321 (mbps) Regards, Wright
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 05:14:29PM +0800, Wright Feng wrote: > > > Tejun Heo 於 3/25/2020 11:12 PM 寫道: > > Hello, > > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:06:33PM +0800, Wright Feng wrote: > > > I was trying do that, but the comment of alloc_oredered_workqueue shows that > > > only WQ_FREEZABLE and WQ_MEM_RECLAIM are meaningful, so... > > > > > > I will measure the throughput with "alloc_ordered_workqueue(NAME, > > > WQ_HIGHPRI, ...)" to see if WQ_HIGHPRI works with alloc_ordered_workqueue. > > > Thanks for the suggestion. > > > > > > --- > > > /** > > > * alloc_ordered_workqueue - allocate an ordered workqueue > > > * @fmt: printf format for the name of the workqueue > > > * @flags: WQ_* flags (only WQ_FREEZABLE and WQ_MEM_RECLAIM are meaningful) > > > * @args...: args for @fmt > > > > Yeah, I think the comment is outdated. If it doesn't work as expected, please > > let me know. > > > It works as expected. With alloc_oredered_workqueue(..., WQ_HIGHPRI, ...), > the nice value is -20 and throughput result with 43455(11ac) on 1 core 1.6 > Ghz platform is > Without WQ_HIGGPRI TX/RX: 293/301 (mbps) > With WQ_HIGHPRI TX/RX: 293/321 (mbps) Will update the comment. Thanks.
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c index cda6bef..3cf0e74 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c @@ -71,6 +71,10 @@ static int brcmf_eap_restrict; module_param_named(eap_restrict, brcmf_eap_restrict, int, 0400); MODULE_PARM_DESC(eap_restrict, "Block non-802.1X frames until auth finished"); +static int brcmf_sdio_wq_highpri; +module_param_named(sdio_wq_highpri, brcmf_sdio_wq_highpri, int, 0); +MODULE_PARM_DESC(sdio_wq_highpri, "Set SDIO workqueue to high priority"); + #ifdef DEBUG /* always succeed brcmf_bus_started() */ static int brcmf_ignore_probe_fail; @@ -418,6 +422,7 @@ struct brcmf_mp_device *brcmf_get_module_param(struct device *dev, settings->roamoff = !!brcmf_roamoff; settings->iapp = !!brcmf_iapp_enable; settings->eap_restrict = !!brcmf_eap_restrict; + settings->sdio_wq_highpri = !!brcmf_sdio_wq_highpri; #ifdef DEBUG settings->ignore_probe_fail = !!brcmf_ignore_probe_fail; #endif diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.h b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.h index 059f09c..0cb39b6 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.h +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.h @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ extern struct brcmf_mp_global_t brcmf_mp_global; * @fcmode: FWS flow control. * @roamoff: Firmware roaming off? * @eap_restrict: Not allow data tx/rx until 802.1X auth succeeds + * @sdio_wq_highpri: Tasks submitted to SDIO workqueue will run immediately. * @ignore_probe_fail: Ignore probe failure. * @country_codes: If available, pointer to struct for translating country codes * @bus: Bus specific platform data. Only SDIO at the mmoment. @@ -49,6 +50,7 @@ struct brcmf_mp_device { bool roamoff; bool iapp; bool eap_restrict; + bool sdio_wq_highpri; bool ignore_probe_fail; struct brcmfmac_pd_cc *country_codes; const char *board_type; diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c index 3a08252..885e8bd 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c @@ -4342,9 +4342,21 @@ struct brcmf_sdio *brcmf_sdio_probe(struct brcmf_sdio_dev *sdiodev) bus->txminmax = BRCMF_TXMINMAX; bus->tx_seq = SDPCM_SEQ_WRAP - 1; + /* attempt to attach to the dongle */ + if (!(brcmf_sdio_probe_attach(bus))) { + brcmf_err("brcmf_sdio_probe_attach failed\n"); + goto fail; + } + /* single-threaded workqueue */ - wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, - dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); + if (sdiodev->settings->sdio_wq_highpri) { + wq = alloc_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", + WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_UNBOUND, + 1, dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); + } else { + wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("brcmf_wq/%s", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, + dev_name(&sdiodev->func1->dev)); + } if (!wq) { brcmf_err("insufficient memory to create txworkqueue\n"); goto fail; @@ -4353,12 +4365,6 @@ struct brcmf_sdio *brcmf_sdio_probe(struct brcmf_sdio_dev *sdiodev) INIT_WORK(&bus->datawork, brcmf_sdio_dataworker); bus->brcmf_wq = wq; - /* attempt to attach to the dongle */ - if (!(brcmf_sdio_probe_attach(bus))) { - brcmf_err("brcmf_sdio_probe_attach failed\n"); - goto fail; - } - spin_lock_init(&bus->rxctl_lock); spin_lock_init(&bus->txq_lock); init_waitqueue_head(&bus->ctrl_wait);