Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:38:29 +0000
From: Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       p.hardwick@option.com
Subject: Re: tty->low_latency + irq context
Message-ID: <20070102183829.10d861fc@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1167758231.5616.22.camel@basalt>
References: <45906820.10805@gmail.com>
	<1167758231.5616.22.camel@basalt>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1235
Lines: 31

> with tty->low_latency set, but it doesn't AFAICS. One possibility for
> deadlock is if the tty->buf.lock spinlock is taken on behalf of a user
> process...

The case to watch out for is

	flip_buffer_push -> ldisc -> driver write of echo/^S/^Q

if you call flip_buffer_push while holding your own lock you may get in
a mess on the echo path.
 
>       * data is received, enough to completely fill the tty buffer
>       * tty_flip_buffer_push() schedules flush_to_ldisc()
>       * before flush_to_ldisc() runs, more data is received
>       * flush_to_ldisc() truncates the incoming data (look for
>         tty->receive_room)
> 
> I don't see how this is supposed to work in general.

For non fake tty hardware at real speeds it wasn't a problem under about
1Mbit. Current tty layer code just uses memory buffering based on kmalloc
and has a 64K limit instead. Works better SMP, scales better and we no
longer need to do stunts like the flip buffers to scrape 56Kbit on a
386SX16

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/