lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: locking changes in tty broke low latency feature
> How can the requirement be for both must-handle-in-minimum-time data
> (low_latency) and the-userspace-reader-isn't-reading-fast-enough-
> so-its-ok-to-halt-transmission ?

Because low latency is about *turn around* time. There are plenty of
protocols that can flow control, do flow control and want low latency
because they are not windowed. It's not mutually exclusive by any means.

> But first I'd like some hard data on whether or not a low latency
> mode is even necessary (at least for user-space).

The easy way to simulate the annoying as crap worst cases from dumbass
firmware downloaders and the like is to set up a link between two PCs and
time 2000+ repetitions of

send 64 bytes
wait for a Y
send 64 bytes
wait for a Y
....

and the matching far end being a box running an existing kernel or a PIC
or something doing the responses.

Historically we used to lose about 20mS per cycle which over 2000 got to
be a bit of a PITA.

Low latency goes back to the days of flip buffers, bottom halves an a
100Hz clock. There are certainly better ways to do it now if its needed.

Alan



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-19 21:01    [W:0.114 / U:4.952 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site