iwlwifi: fix in-column rate scaling

This patch fixes cases that the code raised or didn't decrease
the rate although the success ratio was not good.

Signed-off-by: Guy Cohen <guy.cohen@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965-rs.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965-rs.c
index f28b3cc272dfe8182386b9025ec6fe2a9ea65d25..a89639f958e1b43975da6c6c6c6c7b69561cf10e 100644 (file)
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965-rs.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965-rs.c
@@ -1336,7 +1336,7 @@ static int rs_move_legacy_other(struct iwl_priv *priv,
                                lq_sta->search_better_tbl = 1;
                                goto out;
                        }
-
+                       break;
                case IWL_LEGACY_SWITCH_SISO:
                        IWL_DEBUG_RATE("LQ: Legacy switch to SISO\n");
 
@@ -1422,9 +1422,9 @@ static int rs_move_siso_to_other(struct iwl_priv *priv,
                                lq_sta->search_better_tbl = 1;
                                goto out;
                        }
-
+                       break;
                case IWL_SISO_SWITCH_MIMO2:
-                       IWL_DEBUG_RATE("LQ: SISO switch to MIMO\n");
+                       IWL_DEBUG_RATE("LQ: SISO switch to MIMO2\n");
                        memcpy(search_tbl, tbl, sz);
                        search_tbl->is_SGI = 0;
                        search_tbl->ant_type = ANT_AB; /*FIXME:RS*/
@@ -1689,6 +1689,7 @@ static void rs_rate_scale_perform(struct iwl_priv *priv,
        u8 active_tbl = 0;
        u8 done_search = 0;
        u16 high_low;
+       s32 sr;
 #ifdef CONFIG_IWL4965_HT
        u8 tid = MAX_TID_COUNT;
 #endif
@@ -1864,6 +1865,8 @@ static void rs_rate_scale_perform(struct iwl_priv *priv,
        low = high_low & 0xff;
        high = (high_low >> 8) & 0xff;
 
+       sr = window->success_ratio;
+
        /* Collect measured throughputs for current and adjacent rates */
        current_tpt = window->average_tpt;
        if (low != IWL_RATE_INVALID)
@@ -1871,19 +1874,22 @@ static void rs_rate_scale_perform(struct iwl_priv *priv,
        if (high != IWL_RATE_INVALID)
                high_tpt = tbl->win[high].average_tpt;
 
-       /* Assume rate increase */
-       scale_action = 1;
+       scale_action = 0;
 
        /* Too many failures, decrease rate */
-       if ((window->success_ratio <= IWL_RATE_DECREASE_TH) ||
-           (current_tpt == 0)) {
+       if ((sr <= IWL_RATE_DECREASE_TH) || (current_tpt == 0)) {
                IWL_DEBUG_RATE("decrease rate because of low success_ratio\n");
                scale_action = -1;
 
        /* No throughput measured yet for adjacent rates; try increase. */
        } else if ((low_tpt == IWL_INVALID_VALUE) &&
-                  (high_tpt == IWL_INVALID_VALUE))
-               scale_action = 1;
+                  (high_tpt == IWL_INVALID_VALUE)) {
+
+               if (high != IWL_RATE_INVALID && sr >= IWL_RATE_INCREASE_TH)
+                       scale_action = 1;
+               else if (low != IWL_RATE_INVALID)
+                       scale_action = -1;
+       }
 
        /* Both adjacent throughputs are measured, but neither one has better
         * throughput; we're using the best rate, don't change it! */
@@ -1899,9 +1905,10 @@ static void rs_rate_scale_perform(struct iwl_priv *priv,
                /* Higher adjacent rate's throughput is measured */
                if (high_tpt != IWL_INVALID_VALUE) {
                        /* Higher rate has better throughput */
-                       if (high_tpt > current_tpt)
+                       if (high_tpt > current_tpt &&
+                                       sr >= IWL_RATE_INCREASE_TH) {
                                scale_action = 1;
-                       else {
+                       } else {
                                IWL_DEBUG_RATE
                                    ("decrease rate because of high tpt\n");
                                scale_action = -1;
@@ -1914,23 +1921,17 @@ static void rs_rate_scale_perform(struct iwl_priv *priv,
                                IWL_DEBUG_RATE
                                    ("decrease rate because of low tpt\n");
                                scale_action = -1;
-                       } else
+                       } else if (sr >= IWL_RATE_INCREASE_TH) {
                                scale_action = 1;
+                       }
                }
        }
 
        /* Sanity check; asked for decrease, but success rate or throughput
         * has been good at old rate.  Don't change it. */
-       if (scale_action == -1) {
-               if ((low != IWL_RATE_INVALID) &&
-                   ((window->success_ratio > IWL_RATE_HIGH_TH) ||
+       if ((scale_action == -1) && (low != IWL_RATE_INVALID) &&
+                   ((sr > IWL_RATE_HIGH_TH) ||
                     (current_tpt > (100 * tbl->expected_tpt[low]))))
-                       scale_action = 0;
-
-       /* Sanity check; asked for increase, but success rate has not been great
-        * even at old rate, higher rate will be worse.  Don't change it. */
-       } else if ((scale_action == 1) &&
-                  (window->success_ratio < IWL_RATE_INCREASE_TH))
                scale_action = 0;
 
        switch (scale_action) {
@@ -1959,7 +1960,7 @@ static void rs_rate_scale_perform(struct iwl_priv *priv,
                    "high %d type %d\n",
                     index, scale_action, low, high, tbl->lq_type);
 
- lq_update:
+lq_update:
        /* Replace uCode's rate table for the destination station. */
        if (update_lq) {
                rate = rate_n_flags_from_tbl(tbl, index, is_green);