lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [bisected] pty performance problem

* Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > > Another possibility is to do
> > >
> > > if (tty->low_latency)
> > > schedule_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work, 0);
> > > else
> > > schedule_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work, 1);
> >
> > Flaggery for low latency is kind of lame though - especially if it
> > defaults to off in most drivers as you say.
>
> 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.

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.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-23 13:07    [W:0.088 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site