Message-ID: <20160414160706.4c316d38@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:07:06 +0100
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, nsekhar@...com,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 8250 dma issues ( was Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: 8250_omap: do
 not defer termios changes)

> >> 3. Handling XON/XOFF transmit is mandatory; I don't see a way to do that
> >>    without pause/resume.  
> >
> > Yes, not doing XON/XOFF with DMA is not good. Using hardware flow
> > control is one workaround but the user has no chance of knowing that
> > XON/XOFF has been silently disabled.

You can clear the bits in the termios when the termios is set and the
application *should* interpret that as not supported. I doubt many
applications do for the XON/XOFF case. Equally you can just say that soft
flow control turns off DMA or reduces buffering depending upon the data
rate. We have plenty of hardware in the kernel that is more optimal in
some configurations than others.

This also shouldn't be about whether 4K is a lot - it's about time to
respond. Thus the _time_ latency of getting the ^S/^Q out is what matters
at higher rates. At low speed (1200-9600 etc) you want to be able to
respond within a few characters because the chances are the device the
other end is not very bright.

> > the transfer right away. Oh now I see the same thing in
> > edma_completion_handler(). Okay but this affects now everyone that
> > relies on low latency?  
> 
> Well, the real problem is that only one rx buffer is being used serially,
> first filled by the dma h/w, then emptied by the driver, then resubmitted.
> This creates a gap of time between the dma h/w completion interrupt and
> the resubmission where data loss is possible (and happens).

Most low latency users are concerned about the latency between transmit
and receive. The usual case is windowless protocols like firmware
downloaders. For higher speed that tends to be driven by the DMA
timeouts, for lower baud rates you can perhaps mitigate this by using
chains of very small buffers or just turning off DMA just as we turn off
some of the FIFOs at very low speed ?

> But that's why I'd like to bring the two implementations closer, so that
> maybe both can be replaced with a single rx dma transaction flow.
> [ And perhaps extending tty buffer to perform direct fill, skipping the
>   buffer copy ]

For the general case what IMHO is needed is probably not a direct fill of
the tty buffer (which is surprisingly locking hard - we used to have one
but it was broken) but rather a fastpath around it. With the specific
exception of N_TTY I think every single other line discipline we have is
capable of accepting a pointer and length to a block of data that ceases
to be valid the moment the function returns. All the networking ones
certainly are and it would speed up the usual culprits (3G modems over
USB, bluetooth over onboard 3.3v uart etc). 

So a way to call

	port->fast_rx(data, flags, len);

with a rule that you never mix fast and tty buffers, and with an atomic
swap of port->fast_rx between tty_buffer queueing logic, discard and
ldisc->fast_rx pointers done when the ldisc is set or changes.


There are very few cases where n_tty is the one that needs the optimized
path: uucp died a long time ago 8)

Alan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists