On 09/23/2014 04:24 AM, Frans Klaver wrote:

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 02:13:03PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 08:01:08AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:

quoted

On 09/16/2014 04:50 AM, Frans Klaver wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 01:31:56PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:

quoted

On 09/15/2014 11:39 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:

quoted

On 09/15/2014 10:00 AM, Frans Klaver wrote:

quoted

At 3.6Mbaud, with slightly over 2Mbit/s data coming in, we see 1600 uart
rx buffer overflows within 30 seconds. Threading the interrupt handling reduces
this to about 170 overflows in 10 minutes.

Why is the threadirqs kernel boot option not sufficient?
Or conversely, shouldn't this be selectable?

I wasn't aware of the threadirqs boot option. I also wouldn't know if
this should be selectable. What would be a reason to favor the
non-threaded irq over the threaded irq?

Not everyone cares enough about serial to dedicate kthreads to it :)

Fair enough. In that light, we might not care enough about other
subsystems to dedicate kthreads to it :). Selectable seems reasonable in
that case.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Also, do you see the same performance differential when you implement this
in the 8250 driver (that is, on top of Sebastian's omap->8250 conversion)?

I haven't gotten Sebastian's driver to work properly yet on the console.
There was no reason for me yet to throw my omap changes on top of
Sebastian's queue.

Doing the threaded interrupt change on the 8250 driver doesn't seem as
trivial. Unless I'm mistaken, that version of this patch would mess with
all other 8250 based serial drivers, if it's done properly. Incidentally
I did try using threadirqs, but that didn't give my any significant
results. I mostly noticed a difference in the console.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

PS - To overflow the 64 byte RX FIFO at those data rates means interrupt
latency in excess of 250us?

At 3686400 baud it should take about 174 us to fill a 64 byte buffer. I
haven't done any measurements on the interrupt latency though. If you
consider that we're sending about 1kB of data, 240 times a second, we're
spending a lot of time reading data from the uart. I can imagine the
system has other work to do as well.

System work should not keep irqs from being serviced. Even 174us is a long
time not to service an interrupt. Maybe console writes are keeping the isr
from running?

That's quite possible. I'll have to redo the test setup I had for this to
give you a decent answer. I'll have to do that anyway as Sebastian's
8250 conversion improves.

I haven't had time yet to look into this any further. I'll accept that
this patch may fix a case most people aren't the least interested in.
I'll also happily accept that I probably need a better argumentation
than "this works better for us".Would it make sense to drop this patch
and resubmit the other three? As I mentioned in the previous run, I
think these are useful in any case.

I would've thought the first 2 patches had already been picked up because
they fix div-by-zero faults.

I don't really have a problem with the patch (except for it should be
selectable, even if that's just a CONFIG_ setting). At the same time,
the performance results don't really make sense; so if there's actually
an underlying problem, I'd rather that get addressed (and the long
interrupt latency may be the underlying problem).

As far as the 8250 driver and threaded irqs go, I just was hoping for
another data point with a simple hard-coded test jig, not a full-blown
patch series for all of them. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html