From: Paul Fulghum <paulkf@microgate.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: tty drivers take two
Date: 16 Sep 2004 12:37:50 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1095356269.2772.22.camel@deimos.microgate.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040916164550.GA20766@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 11:45, Alan Cox wrote:
> I was looking at that but some of them do the wakeup before and
> some after and I've not had time to figure out if the order ever
> matters
I don't see the order mattering as far as breaking things,
but might matter a little for performance.
(depending on the particular ldisc implementation)
wake_up_interruptible(&tty->write_wait) should
come after the ldisc write_wakeup (as is done in tty_io.c)
so that send data buffered by the ldisc
can be sent to the driver before trying to process
more send data from a sleeping user context.
The various serial drivers make the two calls for
the same reason: the driver has become capable of
accepting more data. That the drivers make the
calls in different order points back to the
order not mattering for strictly functional purposes.
*BUT*
You made a statement about reworking tty locking
one step at a time, and concentrating on the ldisc
locking first.
In that light, it might be better to factor out the
wake_up_interruptible(&tty->write_wait) calls
after the ldisc locking is complete and integrated.
--
Paul Fulghum
paulkf@microgate.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-16 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-16 14:30 PATCH: tty drivers take two Alan Cox
2004-09-16 15:05 ` Paul Fulghum
2004-09-16 16:45 ` Alan Cox
2004-09-16 17:37 ` Paul Fulghum [this message]
2004-09-16 15:33 ` Diego Calleja
2004-09-16 19:38 ` Paul Fulghum
2004-09-16 20:02 ` Alan Cox
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=1095356269.2772.22.camel@deimos.microgate.com \
--to=paulkf@microgate.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alan@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@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