Date:	Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:43:15 +0200
From:	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:	Sven Brauch <mail@...nbrauch.de>
Cc:	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Toby Gray <toby.gray@...lvnc.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix data loss in cdc-acm

On Mon, 2015-07-20 at 20:07 +0200, Sven Brauch wrote:
> On 20/07/15 19:25, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > What kernel version are you using?
> I'm using linux 4.1.2.
> 
> > The idea of adding another layer of buffering in the cdc-acm driver has
> > been suggested in the past but was rejected (or at least questioned).
> > See for example this thread:
> > 
> > 	https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20110608164626.22bc893c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
> Yes, that is indeed pretty much the same problem and the same solution.
> Answering to the questions brought up in that thread:

Yes, but that was not really a modem. The stuff on the other end
doesn't come over an external conection.

> > a) Why is your setup filling 64K in the time it takes the throttle
> > response to occur
> As far as I understand, the throttle happens only when there's less than
> 128 bytes of free space in the tty buffer. Data can already be lost
> before the tty even decides it should start throttling, simply because
> the throttle threshold is smaller than the amount of data potentially in
> each urb. Also (excuse my cluelessness) it seems that when exactly the

Then there is a problem in the tty code. Now it may not have enough
information, but there is no point of turning the buffers of cdc-acm
into an inofficial buffer.

> throttling happens depends on some scheduling "jitter" as well.
> Additionally, the response of the cdc_acm driver to a throttle request
> is not very prompt; it might have a queue of up to 16kB (16 urbs) pending.
> 
> > b) Do we care (is the right thing to do to lose bits anyway at
> > that point)
> This I cannot answer, I don't know enough about the architecture or
> standards. I can just say that for my case, there's a lot of losses;
> this it not an issue which happens after hours when the system is under
> heavy load, it happens after just a few seconds reproducably.

Then the tty layer needs to throttle earlier. In the general case we
must be ready to throw away data.

> > The tty buffers are quite large these days, but could possibly be bumped
> > further if needed to give the ldisc some more time to throttle the
> > device at very high speeds.
> I do not like this solution. It will again be based on luck, and you
> will still be unable to rely on the delivery guarantee made by the USB
> stack (at least when using bulk).
> My suggestion instead stops the host system from accepting any more data
> from the device when its buffers are full, forcing the device to wait
> before sending out more data (which many kinds of devices might very
> well be able to do).

But others won't and we'd preserve stale data in preference over fresh
data.

> Also note that this patch does not introduce an extra layer of
> buffering. The buffers are already there; this change just alters the
> process which decides when to submit the buffers to the tty, and when to
> free them for more input data from the device.

It does. It turns those buffers from temporary scratch buffers into
a queue.

	Regards
		Oliver


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists