From: Paul Fulghum <paulkf@microgate.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: tty drivers take two
Date: 16 Sep 2004 12:37:50 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1095356269.2772.22.camel@deimos.microgate.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040916164550.GA20766@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 11:45, Alan Cox wrote:
> I was looking at that but some of them do the wakeup before and
> some after and I've not had time to figure out if the order ever
> matters
I don't see the order mattering as far as breaking things,
but might matter a little for performance.
(depending on the particular ldisc implementation)
wake_up_interruptible(&tty->write_wait) should
come after the ldisc write_wakeup (as is done in tty_io.c)
so that send data buffered by the ldisc
can be sent to the driver before trying to process
more send data from a sleeping user context.
The various serial drivers make the two calls for
the same reason: the driver has become capable of
accepting more data. That the drivers make the
calls in different order points back to the
order not mattering for strictly functional purposes.
*BUT*
You made a statement about reworking tty locking
one step at a time, and concentrating on the ldisc
locking first.
In that light, it might be better to factor out the
wake_up_interruptible(&tty->write_wait) calls
after the ldisc locking is complete and integrated.
--
Paul Fulghum
paulkf@microgate.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-16 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-16 14:30 PATCH: tty drivers take two Alan Cox
2004-09-16 15:05 ` Paul Fulghum
2004-09-16 16:45 ` Alan Cox
2004-09-16 17:37 ` Paul Fulghum [this message]
2004-09-16 15:33 ` Diego Calleja
2004-09-16 19:38 ` Paul Fulghum
2004-09-16 20:02 ` Alan Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1095356269.2772.22.camel@deimos.microgate.com \
--to=paulkf@microgate.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alan@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.