[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140219191717.486ac4d0@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19:17:17 +0000
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc: Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@...il.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: locking changes in tty broke low latency feature
> How can the requirement be for both must-handle-in-minimum-time data
> (low_latency) and the-userspace-reader-isn't-reading-fast-enough-
> so-its-ok-to-halt-transmission ?
Because low latency is about *turn around* time. There are plenty of
protocols that can flow control, do flow control and want low latency
because they are not windowed. It's not mutually exclusive by any means.
> But first I'd like some hard data on whether or not a low latency
> mode is even necessary (at least for user-space).
The easy way to simulate the annoying as crap worst cases from dumbass
firmware downloaders and the like is to set up a link between two PCs and
time 2000+ repetitions of
send 64 bytes
wait for a Y
send 64 bytes
wait for a Y
....
and the matching far end being a box running an existing kernel or a PIC
or something doing the responses.
Historically we used to lose about 20mS per cycle which over 2000 got to
be a bit of a PITA.
Low latency goes back to the days of flip buffers, bottom halves an a
100Hz clock. There are certainly better ways to do it now if its needed.
Alan
--
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