lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] tty: Implement lookahead to process XON/XOFF timely
From
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-04-06 13:35    [W:0.111 / U:0.892 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site