From: Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: locking changes in tty broke low latency feature
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:33:46 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <le5laq$40s$1@ger.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 53064672.3000807@hurleysoftware.com
On 2014-02-20, Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> 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:
>
> while (1) {
> read 64 bytes
> compare to pattern
> write 1 byte response
> }
>
> and the sender does this:
>
> for (i = 0; i < 2000; i++) {
> write 64-byte pattern
> read 1 byte response
> }
>
> Sender completes 2000 loops in 160ms total run time;
> that's 80us average per complete round-trip.
If I understand correctly, that 80us _includes_ the actual time for
the bits on the wire (which means the actual "baud rate" involved is
high enough that it's negligible).
> I think this shows that low_latency is unnecessary and should
> just be removed/ignored by the tty core.
If that's the sort of latency that you get for typical kernel
configurations for typical distros, then I agree that the low_latency
flag is not needed by the tty later.
However, it might still be useful for the lower-level tty or
serial-core driver to control CPU usage vs. latency trade-offs (for
exaple, one of my drivers uses it to decide where to set the rx FIFO
threshold).
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I wonder if I could
at ever get started in the
gmail.com credit world?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-20 19:33 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 [this message]
2014-02-20 22:06 ` Peter Hurley
2014-02-23 22:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-02-24 0:23 ` Peter Hurley
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='le5laq$40s$1@ger.gmane.org' \
--to=grant.b.edwards@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@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.