From: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
To: Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
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>
Subject: Re: locking changes in tty broke low latency feature
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:06:08 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53067C50.9010708@hurleysoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <le5laq$40s$1@ger.gmane.org>
On 02/20/2014 02:33 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-02-20, Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> wrote:
>> 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).
Yes, 80us includes the transmit time.
>> 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.
Stock ubuntu kernel config but preempt and 250hz (and debugging stuff).
> 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).
Sure, it could be left for driver consumption.
Regards,
Peter Hurley
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-20 22:06 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 [this message]
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=53067C50.9010708@hurleysoftware.com \
--to=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=grant.b.edwards@gmail.com \
--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 \
/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).