[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140114112457.q54ujbz9c444s040-cebfxv@webmail.spamcop.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:24:57 -0500
From: Pavel Roskin <proski@....org>
To: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: serial8250: bogus low_latency destabilizes kernel, need sanity
check
Hi Alan,
Quoting One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>:
>> Maybe we should unset the low_latency flag as soon as DMA fails? There
>> are two flags, one is state->uart_port->flags and the other is
>> port->low_latency. I guess we need to unset both.
>
> Well low latency and DMA are pretty much exclusive in the real world so
> probably DMA ports shouldn't allow low_latency to be set at all in DMA
> mode.
That's a useful insight. I assumed exactly the opposite.
But how should a real low_latency device work? Are they supported by
8250_core? Do they have hard IRQs? Are those IRQs handled by
serial8250_handle_irq()?
If DMA is not used, then serial8250_rx_chars() is the only way to
receive data. But serial8250_rx_chars() calls tty_flip_buffer_push()
unconditionally, and the later should not be called from the IRQ
context for low_latency devices, if the comment about it is to be
trusted.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
--
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