| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <53064672.3000807@hurleysoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:16:18 -0500
From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To: Hal Murray <murray+fedora@...64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: locking changes in tty broke low latency feature
On 02/19/2014 09:55 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 02/19/2014 06:06 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
>>> Can you give me an idea of your device's average and minimum required
>>> latency (please be specific)? Is your target arch x86 [so I can evaluate the
>>> the impact of bus-locked instructions relative to your expected]?
>>
>> The code I'm familiar with is ntpd and gpsd. They run on almost any hardware
>> or OS and talk to a wide collection of devices.
>>
>> There is no hard requirement for latency. They just work better with lower
>> latency. The lower the better.
>>
>> People gripe about the latency due to USB polling which is about a ms.
>
> Have you tried 3.12+ without low_latency? I ripped out a lot of locks
> from 3.12+ so it's possible it already meets your requirements.
Using Alan's idea to mock up a latency test, I threw together a test jig
using two computers running 3.14-rc1 and my fwserial driver (modified to
not aggregrate writes) in raw mode where the target does this:
while (1) {
read 64 bytes
compare to pattern
write 1 byte response
}
and the sender does this:
for (i = 0; i < 2000; i++) {
write 64-byte pattern
read 1 byte response
}
Sender completes 2000 loops in 160ms total run time;
that's 80us average per complete round-trip.
Here's a snapshot of a function trace for 1 complete round trip at the target:
<idle>-0 [007] d.h1 4856.935561: irq_handler: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: IRQ 00000010 AR_req
<idle>-0 [007] ..s1 4856.935566: log_ar_at_event.isra.33: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: AR spd 2 tl 2a, ffc1 -> ffc0, ack_complete, BW req, 800000000004 40,0
<idle>-0 [007] ..s1 4856.935567: tty_flip_buffer_push <-fwtty_port_handler
kworker/7:0-6872 [007] .... 4856.935571: flush_to_ldisc <-process_one_work
tty-latency-tes-6891 [003] .... 4856.935578: n_tty_write <-tty_write
<idle>-0 [003] d.h1 4856.935591: irq_handler: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: IRQ 00000001 AT_req
<idle>-0 [003] ..s1 4856.935594: log_ar_at_event.isra.33: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: AT spd 2 tl 12, ffc0 -> ffc1, ack_complete, BW req, 800000000004 1,0
The same snapshot explained:
The firewire controller IRQ for received packet in rx dma fifo:
<idle>-0 [007] d.h1 4856.935561: irq_handler: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: IRQ 00000010 AR_req
The firewire-ohci driver rx fifo tasklet running:
<idle>-0 [007] ..s1 4856.935566: log_ar_at_event.isra.33: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: AR spd 2 tl 2a, ffc1 -> ffc0, ack_complete, BW req, 800000000004 40,0
The fwserial driver schdeduling the rx data:
<idle>-0 [007] ..s1 4856.935567: tty_flip_buffer_push <-fwtty_port_handler
The tty buffer input worker running:
kworker/7:0-6872 [007] .... 4856.935571: flush_to_ldisc <-process_one_work
The test application having received the data, compared it,
and writing the 1-byte response:
tty-latency-tes-6891 [003] .... 4856.935578: n_tty_write <-tty_write
The firewire controller IRQ for running the tx dma fifo:
<idle>-0 [003] d.h1 4856.935591: irq_handler: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: IRQ 00000001 AT_req
The firewire-ohci driver tx fifo tasklet acknowledging the sender
of the 64-byte packet has received the 1-byte response:
<idle>-0 [003] ..s1 4856.935594: log_ar_at_event.isra.33: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: AT spd 2 tl 12, ffc0 -> ffc1, ack_complete, BW req, 800000000004 1,0
... trace continued for another 4x 64-byte reads and 1 byte responses:
<idle>-0 [007] d.h1 4856.935646: irq_handler: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: IRQ 00000010 AR_req
<idle>-0 [007] ..s1 4856.935650: log_ar_at_event.isra.33: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: AR spd 2 tl 2b, ffc1 -> ffc0, ack_complete, BW req, 800000000004 40,0
<idle>-0 [007] ..s1 4856.935651: tty_flip_buffer_push <-fwtty_port_handler
kworker/7:0-6872 [007] .... 4856.935655: flush_to_ldisc <-process_one_work
tty-latency-tes-6891 [003] .... 4856.935662: n_tty_write <-tty_write
<idle>-0 [003] d.h1 4856.935674: irq_handler: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: IRQ 00000001 AT_req
<idle>-0 [003] ..s1 4856.935678: log_ar_at_event.isra.33: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: AT spd 2 tl 13, ffc0 -> ffc1, ack_complete, BW req, 800000000004 1,0
<idle>-0 [007] d.h1 4856.935729: irq_handler: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: IRQ 00000010 AR_req
<idle>-0 [007] ..s1 4856.935733: log_ar_at_event.isra.33: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: AR spd 2 tl 2c, ffc1 -> ffc0, ack_complete, BW req, 800000000004 40,0
<idle>-0 [007] ..s1 4856.935734: tty_flip_buffer_push <-fwtty_port_handler
kworker/7:0-6872 [007] .... 4856.935738: flush_to_ldisc <-process_one_work
tty-latency-tes-6891 [003] .... 4856.935746: n_tty_write <-tty_write
<idle>-0 [003] d.h1 4856.935758: irq_handler: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: IRQ 00000001 AT_req
<idle>-0 [003] ..s1 4856.935762: log_ar_at_event.isra.33: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: AT spd 2 tl 14, ffc0 -> ffc1, ack_complete, BW req, 800000000004 1,0
<idle>-0 [007] d.h1 4856.935812: irq_handler: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: IRQ 00000010 AR_req
<idle>-0 [007] ..s1 4856.935816: log_ar_at_event.isra.33: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: AR spd 2 tl 2d, ffc1 -> ffc0, ack_complete, BW req, 800000000004 40,0
<idle>-0 [007] ..s1 4856.935817: tty_flip_buffer_push <-fwtty_port_handler
kworker/7:0-6872 [007] .... 4856.935821: flush_to_ldisc <-process_one_work
tty-latency-tes-6891 [003] .... 4856.935828: n_tty_write <-tty_write
<idle>-0 [003] d.h1 4856.935844: irq_handler: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: IRQ 00000001 AT_req
<idle>-0 [003] ..s1 4856.935847: log_ar_at_event.isra.33: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: AT spd 2 tl 15, ffc0 -> ffc1, ack_complete, BW req, 800000000004 1,0
<idle>-0 [007] d.h1 4856.935895: irq_handler: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: IRQ 00000010 AR_req
<idle>-0 [007] ..s1 4856.935899: log_ar_at_event.isra.33: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: AR spd 2 tl 2e, ffc1 -> ffc0, ack_complete, BW req, 800000000004 40,0
<idle>-0 [007] ..s1 4856.935900: tty_flip_buffer_push <-fwtty_port_handler
kworker/7:0-6872 [007] .... 4856.935904: flush_to_ldisc <-process_one_work
tty-latency-tes-6891 [003] .... 4856.935911: n_tty_write <-tty_write
<idle>-0 [003] d.h1 4856.935923: irq_handler: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: IRQ 00000001 AT_req
<idle>-0 [003] ..s1 4856.935927: log_ar_at_event.isra.33: firewire_ohci 0000:07:06.0: AT spd 2 tl 16, ffc0 -> ffc1, ack_complete, BW req, 800000000004 1,0
I think this shows that low_latency is unnecessary and should
just be removed/ignored by the tty core.
Let me know if you want my test jig (or fwserial patch). The test
was run on a 10-year old Vaio single-core laptop as the sender and
6-year old dual socket xeon workstation (so nothing super tricked
out for this test).
Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
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