[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070102183829.10d861fc@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:38:29 +0000
From: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@...ibm.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
p.hardwick@...ion.com
Subject: Re: tty->low_latency + irq context
> with tty->low_latency set, but it doesn't AFAICS. One possibility for
> deadlock is if the tty->buf.lock spinlock is taken on behalf of a user
> process...
The case to watch out for is
flip_buffer_push -> ldisc -> driver write of echo/^S/^Q
if you call flip_buffer_push while holding your own lock you may get in
a mess on the echo path.
> * data is received, enough to completely fill the tty buffer
> * tty_flip_buffer_push() schedules flush_to_ldisc()
> * before flush_to_ldisc() runs, more data is received
> * flush_to_ldisc() truncates the incoming data (look for
> tty->receive_room)
>
> I don't see how this is supposed to work in general.
For non fake tty hardware at real speeds it wasn't a problem under about
1Mbit. Current tty layer code just uses memory buffering based on kmalloc
and has a 64K limit instead. Works better SMP, scales better and we no
longer need to do stunts like the flip buffers to scrape 56Kbit on a
386SX16
Alan
-
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