[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <464235F4.6080006@microgate.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 14:58:28 -0600
From: Paul Fulghum <paulkf@...rogate.com>
To: James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux console project <linuxconsole-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.
Paul Fulghum wrote:
> As the tty flip buffer code has evolved, that delay value of 1
> was carried along. It may have had some historical purpose, but
> I can't figure it out and it appears to have no use currently.
I looked further back and in the 2.4 kernels this scheduling
was done with the timer task queue (process receive data on
next timer tick).
I guess the schedule_delayed_work() with a time delay of 1
was the best approximation of the previous behavior.
There is no logical reason to delay the first attempt at
processing receive data so schedule_delayed_work() in
tty_schedule_flip() should be changed to 0 (as was the
case for con_schedule_flip).
The schedule_delayed_work in flush_to_ldisc() will continue
to use a delay of 1 if the ldisc can't accept more data.
This allows the user app and ldisc to catch up.
Subsequent calls to tty_schedule_flip won't affect
this 'back off' delay because once the work is scheduled
(with a delay of 1) new scheduling calls are ignored for
the same work structure.
I've been testing the change to 0 in tty_schedule_flip()
under various loads and data rates with no ill effects.
--
Paul Fulghum
Microgate Systems, Ltd.
-
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