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

  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 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).