[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1258952431.6261.38.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:00:31 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Robert Swan <swan.r.l@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bisected] pty performance problem
On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 12:23 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:39:26 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> >
> > (Cc:-ed Alan and Linus - mail repeated below. eot.)
>
> I saw it and replied already. The kernel now queues the work for the pty
> as it does normal tty devices. If the CPU load is that low and nothing
> else is happening it makes me wonder what the scheduler thinks it is
> doing ?
Hm. Looks to me like it's doing what it was told to do.
diff --git a/drivers/char/tty_buffer.c b/drivers/char/tty_buffer.c
index 66fa4e1..92a0864 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tty_buffer.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tty_buffer.c
@@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ void tty_flip_buffer_push(struct tty_struct *tty)
if (tty->low_latency)
flush_to_ldisc(&tty->buf.work.work);
else
- schedule_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work, 1);
+ schedule_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work, 0);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_flip_buffer_push);
Telling it to execute now made test proggy happy.. and likely broke tons
of things that need a delay there. So, what's wrong with delaying, when
that's what the customer asked for? /me must be missing something. It
could know that no delay is needed?
-Mike
--
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