From: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Hal Murray <murray+fedora@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: locking changes in tty broke low latency feature
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:23:28 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <530A9100.7090303@hurleysoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402232330190.21251@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Hi Thomas,
On 02/23/2014 05:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Peter Hurley wrote:
>
>> On 02/19/2014 09:55 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>> On 02/19/2014 06:06 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
>>>>> Can you give me an idea of your device's average and minimum required
>>>>> latency (please be specific)? Is your target arch x86 [so I can
>>>>> evaluate the
>>>>> the impact of bus-locked instructions relative to your expected]?
>>>>
>>>> The code I'm familiar with is ntpd and gpsd. They run on almost any
>>>> hardware
>>>> or OS and talk to a wide collection of devices.
>>>>
>>>> There is no hard requirement for latency. They just work better with
>>>> lower
>>>> latency. The lower the better.
>>>>
>>>> People gripe about the latency due to USB polling which is about a ms.
>>>
>>> Have you tried 3.12+ without low_latency? I ripped out a lot of locks
>>> from 3.12+ so it's possible it already meets your requirements.
>>
>> Using Alan's idea to mock up a latency test, I threw together a test jig
>> using two computers running 3.14-rc1 and my fwserial driver (modified to
>> not aggregrate writes) in raw mode where the target does this:
>
> This is a complete pointless test. Use a bog standard 8250 UART on the
> PC and connect a microcontroller on the other end which serves you an
> continous stream of data at 115200 Baud.
>
> There is no way you can keep up with that without the low latency
> option neither on old and nor on new machines if you have enough other
> stuff going on in the system.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'keep up'?
115kbaud is 11.25KB/sec which is a trivial workload (unless you're
using a 1-byte read buffer).
If you have enough other stuff going on in the system (hackbench?),
even the low_latency knob won't fix the inability to keep up because all
the buffering will fill up and overrun anyway.
So what I need to understand about your setup is:
a) is throughput the actual problem or is latency? IOW, does the
device have a minimum response time from a user-space process
or is buffered data getting dropped?
b) is the device flow-controlled or is that not an option?
Based on those answers, if necessary, I could get you an instrumentation
patch, if your willing, so I can profile where the problem is.
And I haven't seen a bog standard 8250 UART in 3 decades. What UART
do you actually have?
Regards,
Peter Hurley
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-24 0:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-18 9:38 locking changes in tty broke low latency feature Stanislaw Gruszka
2014-02-18 9:57 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-02-18 22:12 ` Peter Hurley
2014-02-19 13:03 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2014-02-19 16:55 ` Grant Edwards
2014-02-19 17:38 ` Peter Hurley
2014-02-19 18:12 ` Grant Edwards
2014-02-19 18:42 ` Peter Hurley
2014-02-19 19:17 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-02-19 20:22 ` Peter Hurley
2014-02-19 21:42 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-02-20 2:19 ` Peter Hurley
2014-02-21 15:39 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-02-21 15:58 ` Peter Hurley
2014-02-21 16:31 ` Grant Edwards
2014-02-19 23:06 ` Hal Murray
2014-02-19 23:35 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-02-20 2:55 ` Peter Hurley
2014-02-20 4:16 ` Greg KH
2014-02-20 18:16 ` Peter Hurley
2014-02-20 19:33 ` Grant Edwards
2014-02-20 22:06 ` Peter Hurley
2014-02-23 22:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-02-24 0:23 ` Peter Hurley [this message]
2014-02-24 13:23 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-02-24 15:44 ` Grant Edwards
2014-02-20 21:55 ` Hal Murray
2014-02-20 22:14 ` Grant Edwards
2014-02-21 15:43 ` One Thousand Gnomes
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=530A9100.7090303@hurleysoftware.com \
--to=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=murray+fedora@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net \
--cc=sgruszka@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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.