[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <469D35B1.5050905@microgate.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:33:37 -0600
From: Paul Fulghum <paulkf@...rogate.com>
To: James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux console project <linuxconsole-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use tty_schedule in VT code.
James Simmons wrote:
> The low_latency is used by the drivers in the case where its
> not in a interrupt context. Well we are trusting the drivers.
> Now if it is true what you said then tty_flip_buffer_push has
> a bug. Looking at several drivers including serial devices
> they set the low_latency flag.
The generic serial driver (8250) is the one that was
dead locking when that code originally existed.
It was setting low_latency and calling from interrupt context.
>> And the initial schedule has no reason to add the extra delay.
>
> So do you support a non delay work queue as well?
No, the delay work must be used for flush_to_ldisc()
so it makes no sense to define two different work queues
(one delayed and one not) for the same work.
I support your patch.
The current stuff works and your patch works.
With your patch, you actually reduce initial
latency for processing receive data.
Whichever way everyone else wants to go.
--
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