Re: locking changes in tty broke low latency feature

[Peter Hurley]

Hi Stanislaw,

On 02/18/2014 04:38 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> setserial has low_latency option which should minimize receive latency
> (scheduler delay). AFAICT it is used if someone talk to external device
> via RS-485/RS-232 and need to have quick requests and responses . On
> kernel this feature was implemented by direct tty processing from
> interrupt context:
>
> void tty_flip_buffer_push(struct tty_port *port)
> {
>          struct tty_bufhead *buf = &port->buf;
>
>          buf->tail->commit = buf->tail->used;
>
>          if (port->low_latency)
>                  flush_to_ldisc(&buf->work);
>          else
>                  schedule_work(&buf->work);
> }
>
> But after 3.12 tty locking changes, calling flush_to_ldisc() from
> interrupt context is a bug (we got scheduling while atomic bug report
> here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065087 )
>
> I'm not sure how this should be solved. After Peter get rid all of those
> race condition in tty layer, we probably don't want go back to use
> spin_lock's there. Maybe we can create WQ_HIGHPRI workqueue and schedule
> flush_to_ldisc() work there. Or perhaps users that need to low latency,
> should switch to thread irq and prioritize serial irq to meat
> retirements. Anyway setserial low_latency is now broken and all who use
> this feature in the past can not do this any longer on 3.12+ kernels.
>
> Thoughts ?

Can you give me an idea of your device's average and minimum required
latency (please be specific)?  Is your target arch x86 [so I can evaluate the
the impact of bus-locked instructions relative to your expected]?

Also, how painful would it be if unsupported termios changes were rejected
if the port was in low_latency mode and/or if low_latency setting was
disallowed because of termios state?

It would be pointless to throttle low_latency, yes?

What would be an acceptable outcome of being unable to accept input?
Corrupted overrun? Dropped i/o? Queued for later? Please explain with
comparison to the outcome of missed minimum latency.

Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/