Re: [bisected] pty performance problem

[Alan Cox]

> > So you'd prefer to detect devices that are byte based or message based 
> > by what method ?
> 
> I'd not delay the worklet by default - i.e. i'd do Mike's patch.

Certainly stuff like pty should not delay
> 
> Havent tested all effects of it though - do you have any estimation 
> about negative effects from such a change? We do have hard numbers 
> (latencies in the millisecs range) from the opposite direction and those 
> numbers arent pretty.

On a PC I'm not too worried - we might burn a bit more CPU and Arjan
might even manage to measure it somewhere. There is the theoretical bad
case where we end up at 100% CPU because the irq, wake, process one char,
irq wake, process one char sequence fits the CPU so we don't sleep.

Embedded might be more of a concern, the old behaviour comes from 386/486
days with low CPU power.

USB doesn't worry me - USB devices generally have their own buffering
algorithm and use a timer so that they batch data efficiently into USB
buffers.

The drivers/serial layer is often run with low latency set anyway so that
seems to be ok for the most part.

Give it a go, send the patch to the maintainer, try it in -next and see
if anyone screams.

Alan
--
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/