Re: locking changes in tty broke low latency feature

[Peter Hurley]

On 02/20/2014 02:33 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2014-02-20, Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Sender completes 2000 loops in 160ms total run time;
> > that's 80us average per complete round-trip.
>
> If I understand correctly, that 80us _includes_ the actual time for
> the bits on the wire (which means the actual "baud rate" involved is
> high enough that it's negligible).

Yes, 80us includes the transmit time.

> > I think this shows that low_latency is unnecessary and should
> > just be removed/ignored by the tty core.
>
> If that's the sort of latency that you get for typical kernel
> configurations for typical distros, then I agree that the low_latency
> flag is not needed by the tty later.

Stock ubuntu kernel config but preempt and 250hz (and debugging stuff).

> However, it might still be useful for the lower-level tty or
> serial-core driver to control CPU usage vs. latency trade-offs (for
> exaple, one of my drivers uses it to decide where to set the rx FIFO
> threshold).

Sure, it could be left for driver consumption.

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/