[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200905071701.51195.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 17:01:50 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>, greg@...ah.com,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] usb_debug: EXPERIMENTAL - poll hcd device to force writes
Am Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2009 16:35:57 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > On a fundamental note, thinking about this in terms of numbers of URBs
> > is strictly speaking wrong. We need to limit data in flight. For
> > efficiency we should make buffers as large as possible within that limit.
>
> But for latency you should submit URBs as soone as possible within that
> limit, which generally means small buffers.
This is true only if the device's buffer would run dry. But if no URB is
in flight, a URB should be written right away.
> How about setting the upper limit to URBs in flight based on the baud
> rate? Faster transfers deserve more URBs, right? Assuming some
> minimum number of bytes per URB (4? 8?), there should be enough URBs to
> fill a pipeline whose length is around 5 ms or so (interrupt latency).
Hm, you say many URBs can complete before an interrupt handler
can react?
Regards
Oliver
--
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