[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140224132334.313f2527@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:23:34 +0000
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Hal Murray <murray+fedora@...64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>,
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
> This is a complete pointless test. Use a bog standard 8250 UART on the
> PC and connect a microcontroller on the other end which serves you an
> continous stream of data at 115200 Baud.
>
> There is no way you can keep up with that without the low latency
> option neither on old and nor on new machines if you have enough other
> stuff going on in the system.
Sorry but having done this in the past the reverse is true. On ancient
machines with crap uarts the low_latency case would routinely overrun
while the non low_latency case did not. That was half of the point of
deferred processing - it pushed tty processing out of the IRQ handler so
bytes were not lost and a 486DX could cope with a 56Kbit modem.
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