Message-ID: <CAL_JsqKruW=XG6XFZGh8aQKOpmoqFj=bN-s3NLXi7fbLcDhzWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:33:38 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
        NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>,
        "Dr . H . Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "open list:BLUETOOTH DRIVERS" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] UART slave device bus

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:04 AM, One Thousand Gnomes
<gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> No, the code should be fast as it is so simple. I assume there is some
>> reason the tty buffering is more complex than just a circular buffer.
>
> I would suggest you read n_tty.c carefully and then it'll make a fair bit
> of sense. It has to interlock multiple reader/writes with discipline
> changes and flushes of pending data. At the same time a received
> character may cause output changes including bytes to be queued for
> transmit and the entire lot must not excessively recurse.
>
> It's fun and it took years to make work safely but basically you need to
> handle a simultaneous ldisc change, config change, read of data from the
> buffers, receive, transmit and the receive causing the transmit status to
> change and maybe other transmits, that might have to be sent with
> priority. It's fun 8)
>
> The good news is that nobody but n_tty and maybe n_irda cares on the rx
> side. Every other ldisc consumes the bytes immediately. IRDA hasn't worked
> for years anyway.
>
>> My best guess is because the tty layer has to buffer things for
>> userspace and userspace can be slow to read? Do line disciplines make
>> assumptions about the tty buffering? Is 4KB enough buffering?
>
> RTFS but to save you a bit of effort
>
> 1. 4K is not enough, 64K is not always sufficient, this is why we have
> all the functionality you appear to want to re-invent already in the tty
> buffer logic of the tty_port

I don't want to reinvent it which is why I'm asking.

> 2. Only n_tty actually uses the tty_port layer buffering

So the first point on 4K is not enough only applies to n_tty? If I
don't need the tty_port buffer logic, then how am I re-inventing it?

> 3. The ring buffer used for dumb uarts is entirely about latency limits
> on low end processors and only used by some uarts anyway.
>
>> Also, the current receive implementation has no concept of blocking or
>> timeout. Should the uart_dev_rx() function return when there's no more
>> data or wait (with timeout) until all requested data is received?
>> (Probably do all of them is my guess).
>
> Your rx routine needs to be able to run in IRQ context, not block and
> complete in very very short time scales because on some hardware you have
> exactly 9 bit times to recover the data byte and clear the IRQ done.
> Serial really stretches some of the low end embedded processors running
> at 56K/115200, and RS485 at 4Mbits even with 8 bytes of buffering is
> pretty tight. Thus you need very fast buffers for just about any use case.
> Dumb uarts you'll need to keep the existing ring buffer or similar
> (moving to a kfifo would slightly improve performance I think) and queue
> after.
>
>> >> - Convert a real driver/line discipline over to UART bus.
>> >
>> > That's going to be the real test, I recommend trying that as soon as
>> > possible as it will show where the real pain points are :)
>
> The locking. It's taken ten years to debug the current line discipline
> change locking. If you want to be able to switch stuff kernel side
> however it's somewhat easier.
>
> The change should be
>
> Add tty_port->rx(uint8_t *data,uint8_t *flags, unsigned int len)
>
> The semantics of tty_port->rx are
>
> - You may not assume a tty is bound to this port
> - You may be called in IRQ context, but are guaranteed not to get
>   parallel calls for the same port
> - When you return the bytes you passed are history
>
> At that point you can set tty_port->rx to point to the
> tty_flip_buffer_push() and everyone can use it. Slow ones will want to
> queue to a ring buffer then do tty_port->rx (where we do the flush_buffer
> now), fast ones will do the ->rx directly.

I think I understand this for rx, but let's back-up to the
registration and transmit paths. tty_port and uart_port have nothing
in common other than name, and tty_port has nothing to do with i/o. So
we still need tty_operations which all take a tty_struct and implies a
tty_driver. It seems to me we would need surgery all over the tty code
to make chardev, ldisc and anything else I'm not aware of optional.

Rob

Powered by blists - more mailing lists