[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080327041306.GA10095@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:13:06 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Real time USB2Serial devices and behaivor
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:58:37PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > > Is there any reason to think that if I created my own isochronous
> > > USB2Serial adapter and iso-usb-driver that I couldn't get determinism?
> >
> > I strongly doubt it as others have tried and failed in the past.
>
> I don't understand. Isochronous transfers have pretty strict
> transfer-time guarantees. Why wouldn't this work?
I don't know, but the person who tried this a while ago said it wasn't
really "real-time" enough for their application (robot arm movement).
> One reason I can think of is that Iso transfers aren't reliable. But
> then regular RS232-type serial transfers aren't reliable either.
>
> The only other reason is that the USB stack itself has an unpredictable
> amount of overhead. However I think it should fall within an
> acceptable range for RT applications.
It's all about bounding the longest latency. Sometimes, under heavy
loads, latency can be pretty big. But now that we have the -rt kernel,
it might be a lot better than before, so that might be possible now,
haven't tried it...
good luck,
greg k-h
--
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