All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
To: "Jakub Kiciński" <moorray3@wp.pl>, "Dave P Martin" <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: "Russell King" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	"Jakub Kicinski" <kubakici@wp.pl>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Karol Dębogórski" <k.debogorski@a2s.pl>,
	"linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
	LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] amba-pl011: simplify TX handling
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:55:42 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5508406E.5060607@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150317154248.1675cd4c@north>

[resent with LAKML address fixed]
Hi Jakub,

On 17/03/15 14:42, Jakub Kiciński wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:58:44 +0000, Dave P Martin wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:15:29PM +0000, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> From: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@wp.pl>

[ ... ]
>>
>> My update still keeps the softirq stuff.  I wanted to avoid adding
>> status polling inside the interrupt handler's core loop, due to
>> concerns about performance overhead: without the polling, the
>> writes to DR are fire-and-forget, whereas polling FR each time
>> involves a whole round-trip to the UART which may involve significant
>> extra time cost and/or IRQ disable latency; however.
>>
>> Your approach does mitigate some of the cost by only starting to
>> poll after count chars have been transmitted, and will typically
>> halve the number of IRQs taken -- which could lead to a net benefit.
>> It would be good to see some benchmarks to understand how much
>> difference it makes to performance.
> 
> I will *try* to come up with some figures but I don't have any
> high-speed UARTs so my tests run at 115k tops.

Have you tried this?
http://fw.hardijzer.nl/?p=138

This drives the RPi PL011 from a higher frequency clock, thus you can
achieve much higher baud rates. Haven't tried this myself, but it looks
reasonable and not too complicated. You need a matching speed at the
other end, of course, AFAIK the FTDI USB chip can do this.

Cheers,
Andre.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: andre.przywara@arm.com (Andre Przywara)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] amba-pl011: simplify TX handling
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:55:42 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5508406E.5060607@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150317154248.1675cd4c@north>

[resent with LAKML address fixed]
Hi Jakub,

On 17/03/15 14:42, Jakub Kici?ski wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:58:44 +0000, Dave P Martin wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:15:29PM +0000, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> From: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@wp.pl>

[ ... ]
>>
>> My update still keeps the softirq stuff.  I wanted to avoid adding
>> status polling inside the interrupt handler's core loop, due to
>> concerns about performance overhead: without the polling, the
>> writes to DR are fire-and-forget, whereas polling FR each time
>> involves a whole round-trip to the UART which may involve significant
>> extra time cost and/or IRQ disable latency; however.
>>
>> Your approach does mitigate some of the cost by only starting to
>> poll after count chars have been transmitted, and will typically
>> halve the number of IRQs taken -- which could lead to a net benefit.
>> It would be good to see some benchmarks to understand how much
>> difference it makes to performance.
> 
> I will *try* to come up with some figures but I don't have any
> high-speed UARTs so my tests run at 115k tops.

Have you tried this?
http://fw.hardijzer.nl/?p=138

This drives the RPi PL011 from a higher frequency clock, thus you can
achieve much higher baud rates. Haven't tried this myself, but it looks
reasonable and not too complicated. You need a matching speed at the
other end, of course, AFAIK the FTDI USB chip can do this.

Cheers,
Andre.

       reply	other threads:[~2015-03-17 14:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1426547729-21255-1-git-send-email-moorray3@wp.pl>
     [not found] ` <20150317135844.GA3759@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
     [not found]   ` <20150317154248.1675cd4c@north>
2015-03-17 14:55     ` Andre Przywara [this message]
2015-03-17 14:55       ` [PATCH] amba-pl011: simplify TX handling Andre Przywara
     [not found] <20150317163200.GE3759@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
2015-03-17 23:42 ` Jakub Kiciński
2015-03-17 23:42   ` Jakub Kiciński
2015-03-18 17:41   ` Dave P Martin
2015-03-18 17:41     ` Dave P Martin
2015-03-18 20:26     ` Jakub Kiciński
2015-03-18 20:26       ` Jakub Kiciński
2015-03-18 23:43     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-03-18 23:43       ` Russell King - ARM Linux

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=5508406E.5060607@arm.com \
    --to=andre.przywara@arm.com \
    --cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=k.debogorski@a2s.pl \
    --cc=kubakici@wp.pl \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=moorray3@wp.pl \
    /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.