Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754616Ab1CVKfV (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 06:35:21 -0400 Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:46419 "EHLO www.etchedpixels.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752270Ab1CVKfS (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 06:35:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:35:34 +0000 From: Alan Cox To: Johan Hovold Cc: Toby Gray , Oliver Neukum , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] USB: cdc-acm: Prevent data loss when filling tty buffer. Message-ID: <20110322103534.2284099e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20110322100526.GB21343@localhost> References: <1300722745-2404-1-git-send-email-toby.gray@realvnc.com> <1300730698-17099-1-git-send-email-toby.gray@realvnc.com> <20110322100526.GB21343@localhost> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.22.0; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1998 Lines: 51 > re-submitted. So the only way this will work is if it can be guaranteed > that the line discipline will throttle and later unthrottle us. I > doubt that is the case, but perhaps Alan can give a more definite > answer? If an ldisc throttles it should always later unthrottle. However flow control is async so at high enough data rates it'll be too slow. > I would also prefer a more generic solution to the problem so that we > don't need to re-introduce driver buffering again. Since we already have > the throttelling mechanism in place, if we could only be notified/find > out that the tty buffers are say half-full, we could throttle (from The tty layer actually knows this fact > within the driver) but still push the remaining buffer still on the wire > as they arrive. It would of course require a guarantee that such a > throttle-is-about-to-happen notification is actually followed by (a > throttle and) unthrottle. Thoughts on that? tty throttling is at the ldisc layer, the tty buffers are below this. The space left being 64K - tty->buf.memory_used So you can certainly add the following routine int tty_constipated(struct tty *t) { if (tty->buf.memory_used > 49152) return 1; return 0; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tty_constipated); to drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c The wakeup side is a bit trickier. The down side of this of course is that you are likely to run at below peak performance as you'll keep throttling back the hardware, whereas if you have a tickless kernel with HZ set to 1000 it's probably sufficient to bump the buffer sizes. Right now (see tty_buffer.c) it's simply set to 64K as a sanity check against throttled devices not stopping, but there isn't actually any reason it couldn't be configurable at port setup time. -- 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/