[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081115001013.GM25117@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:10:13 -0500
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] serial/8250.c: Use self-adjusting list for port poll
order.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:47:11PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > This code does that by using the previous poll cycles as a hint.
> > If a port is idle, it will migrate to the end of the list and
> > only have to be checked once.
> >
> > Part 1 changed the list to singly-linked to make the list shuffling easier.
> >
> > Comments? Please?
>
> Is it really worth the complexity
>
> - PCI ports are shared IRQ always
> - Legacy ports are almost never shared IRQ on the LPC bus (and are
> increasingly going away)
It's worth the complexity only *if* you have enough ports shared on a
single IRQ and simultaneously such that there a risk that if you don't
poll them quickly enough, characters will actually get dropped from
the UART's FIFO. The question is whether that is likely to happen on
modern CPU's. I worred about such things when I tried to make 16
115kbps serial ports work at full-speed using relatively primitive
16550A UART's with 16 character FIFO's on a 40 MHz 386. But (a)
UART's generally have deeper FIFO's these days, and (b) CPU's have
gotten a wee bit faster since 1992.
So color me dubious that this is actually necessary....
- Ted
--
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