linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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




  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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).