Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030195AbXAZOUn (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:20:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030226AbXAZOUn (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:20:43 -0500 Received: from caffeine.uwaterloo.ca ([129.97.134.17]:59796 "EHLO caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030195AbXAZOUm (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:20:42 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:20:41 -0500 To: Paul Fulghum Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Strange problem with tty layer Message-ID: <20070126142041.GD7584@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <20070124204009.GA7584@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <45B7CDB5.7020909@microgate.com> <20070125151639.GH7582@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070125151639.GH7582@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1814 Lines: 44 On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 10:16:39AM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > I am now trying this, which so far seem to help (I had a printk in there > earlier and managed to trigger that). > > --- ori/drivers/char/tty_io.c 2007-01-24 18:02:48.000000000 -0500 > +++ new/drivers/char/tty_io.c 2007-01-25 09:50:02.000000000 -0500 > @@ -2774,6 +2778,14 @@ > spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->buf.lock, flags); > while((tbuf = tty->buf.head) != NULL) { > while ((count = tbuf->commit - tbuf->read) != 0) { > + if (!tty->receive_room) { > + schedule_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work, 1); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, flags); > + goto out; > + } > + if (count > tty->receive_room) { > + count = tty->receive_room; > + } > char_buf = tbuf->char_buf_ptr + tbuf->read; > flag_buf = tbuf->flag_buf_ptr + tbuf->read; > tbuf->read += count; > > This appeared to be (essentially) the key change in 2.6.18 related to > the check of tty->receive_room. > > I will now run a bunch more tests to see if it manages to keep it from > having any more character losses. > > Thank you for the suggestion of where to look. Well it turns out that didn't help. Neither does 2.6.18 (that one was the easiest newer one to try). It does seem as if the error rate is lower with 2.6.18 than with 2.6.16, so perhaps there was more than one place that could cause losses in the tty buffering. I had only 2 failures in 15 hours with 2.6.18, rather than a whole lot of failures with 2.6.16. I guess I will have to try 2.6.19 or even something newer. -- Len Sorensen - 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/