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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:06:08 -0500
From:	Peter Hurley <>
To:	Grant Edwards <>
	Hal Murray <>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <>,
	Stanislaw Gruszka <>
Subject: Re: locking changes in tty broke low latency feature

On 02/20/2014 02:33 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-02-20, Peter Hurley <> wrote:
>> Sender completes 2000 loops in 160ms total run time;
>> that's 80us average per complete round-trip.
> If I understand correctly, that 80us _includes_ the actual time for
> the bits on the wire (which means the actual "baud rate" involved is
> high enough that it's negligible).

Yes, 80us includes the transmit time.

>> I think this shows that low_latency is unnecessary and should
>> just be removed/ignored by the tty core.
> If that's the sort of latency that you get for typical kernel
> configurations for typical distros, then I agree that the low_latency
> flag is not needed by the tty later.

Stock ubuntu kernel config but preempt and 250hz (and debugging stuff).

> However, it might still be useful for the lower-level tty or
> serial-core driver to control CPU usage vs. latency trade-offs (for
> exaple, one of my drivers uses it to decide where to set the rx FIFO
> threshold).

Sure, it could be left for driver consumption.

Peter Hurley

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists