Re: [PATCH 2/2] tty: Implement lookahead to process XON/XOFF timely

[Jiri Slaby]

On 05. 04. 22, 18:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:24:37PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > When tty is not read from, XON/XOFF may get stuck into an
> > intermediate buffer. As those characters are there to do software
> > flow-control, it is not very useful. In the case where neither end
> > reads from ttys, the receiving ends might not be able receive the
> > XOFF characters and just keep sending more data to the opposite
> > direction. This problem is almost guaranteed to occur with DMA
> > which sends data in large chunks.
> >
> > If TTY is slow to process characters, that is, eats less than given
> > amount in receive_buf, invoke lookahead for the rest of the chars
> > to process potential XON/XOFF characters.
> >
> > The guards necessary for ensuring the XON/XOFF character are
> > processed only once were added by the previous patch. All this patch
> > needs to do on that front is to pass the lookahead count (that can
> > now be non-zero) into port->client_ops->receive_buf().
>
> ...
>
> > +static bool __n_tty_receive_char_special(struct tty_struct *tty, unsigned char c,
> > +					 bool lookahead_done)
> > +{
> > +	if (!I_IXON(tty))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	if (c == START_CHAR(tty)) {
> > +		if (!lookahead_done) {
> > +			start_tty(tty);
> > +			process_echoes(tty);
> > +		}
> > +		return true;
> > +	}
> > +	if (c == STOP_CHAR(tty)) {
> > +		if (!lookahead_done)
> > +			stop_tty(tty);
> > +		return true;
> > +	}
> > +	return false;
> > +}
>
> Looking into this I would first make a preparatory patch that splits out
> current code into something like
>
> static bool __n_tty_receive_char_special_no_lookahead(struct tty_struct *tty, unsigned char c)
> {
> 	...current code...
> }
>
> Then in the patch 1 you add
>
> static bool __n_tty_receive_char_special_lookahead(struct tty_struct *tty, unsigned char c)
> {
> 	...
> }
>
> static bool __n_tty_receive_char_special(struct tty_struct *tty, unsigned char c,
> 					 bool lookahead_done)

This should be dubbed better. Maybe n_tty_receive_char_flow_control()?

And I would place the if (I_IXON(tty)) to the caller. I am a bit lost in 
this pseudo code, so maybe this doesn't make sense in your proposal. I 
have something like in my mind:

if (I_IXON(tty))
  return n_tty_receive_char_flow_control();

Historically, these n_tty_receive* function names were a big mess. Don't 
produce more of that by simply prepending only "__".

> {
> 	if (!I_IXON(tty))
> 		return false;
>
> 	if (lookahead_done)
> 		return _lookahead();
>
> 	return _no_lookahead();
> }

thanks
--
js
suse labs