[PATCH 3/4] tty: omap-serial: use threaded interrupt handler

[Peter Hurley]

On 09/23/2014 04:24 AM, Frans Klaver wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 02:13:03PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 08:01:08AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>> On 09/16/2014 04:50 AM, Frans Klaver wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 01:31:56PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>>>> On 09/15/2014 11:39 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/15/2014 10:00 AM, Frans Klaver wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>>> 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.
> 
> 
>>>>
>>>>>> 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