[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090112174531.682f49ea@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:45:31 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Denis Joseph Barrow <D.Barow@...ion.com>
Cc: Linux USB kernel mailing list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux netdev Mailing list <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Hardwick <P.Hardwick@...ion.com>
Subject: Re: re your change to the low_latency flag in the hso driver in
2.6.29-rc1
> I remember removing the low_latency flag to 0 once & if I recall correctly performance
> was severely impacted & there may have been other problems which I don't recall.
The modern buffering and old buffering are rather different so that
shouldn't be a problem.
> Now tty_insert_flip_string can return 0 bytes leading to an infinite loop if tty buffers are full,
> as write_length_remaining never goes to zero as I am dependent on the line
> discipline being called from tty_flip_buffer_push to set TTY_THROTTLED by calling flush_to_ldisc
In all cases tty_insert_flip_string may return 0 for other reasons (eg
out of memory).
> checking if curr_write_len=0 from tty_insert_flip_string might fix the problem
> Please look at put_rxbuf_data carefully, there might be other gremlins. The serial port
> is supposed to be high performance this fix will impact this
Will do, but it should have no impact at all on throughput - in fact it
ought to improve it. You can't call tty_flip_buffer_push() from an
IRQ handler with tty->low_latency set anyway...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists