Re: locking changes in tty broke low latency feature

[Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>]

On 2014-02-21, Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> wrote:

> I think the consensus is to leave the low_latency facility in, but
> remove it's connection to the tty buffers.
>
> If the known-to-be-already-in-non-interrupt-context drivers want,
> I can add a different function for executing flush_to_ldisc()
> directly. But I don't want to do that without a use-case and test
> subject.

Three of the drivers I maintain have modes where they handle all rx
data in non-interrupt contexts, but I'm not convinced (or even
suspicious) that there would be any noticeable benefit from such a
function.  If, at some point in the future, it becomes apparent that
there is "too much latency" in certain cases then perhaps it can be
looked at again -- but I think doing it now is premature optimization.
That said, all things being equal, it would be nice to avoid anything
that would make such an addition impossible in the future.

>> First question though comes before all of this - and that is do we need
>> low_latency at all any more or is the current scheduling logic now good
>> enough to do the job anyway.
>
> Right.
>
> Based on my recent test, I think low_latency doesn't need to be a
> knob for the tty core.

I Agree: there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it's needed by the
tty/ldisc layer.

> Drivers can continue to use it to mess with their rx fifo settings
> and such like.

Excellent.  One of my serial_core drivers still has (in it's default
configuration) 10ms of latency that I can choose to eliminate on a
per-port bases (at the cost of extra CPU cycles) when the low_latency
flag is set.

> I plan on sending Greg a patch to do just that, probably this weekend.

Cool.  Thanks much for your attention to this.

-- 
Grant