Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-12 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
> > Worth me looking into ? > > I have to give this a lot more thought. > > The universality of n_tty is important, and costs real cycles on servers and > such. It's not just about typing speed. For most systems its about ppp performance and nothing much else in real use. I'm not arguing for

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-12 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
Worth me looking into ? I have to give this a lot more thought. The universality of n_tty is important, and costs real cycles on servers and such. It's not just about typing speed. For most systems its about ppp performance and nothing much else in real use. I'm not arguing for this as

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-11 Thread Peter Hurley
On 12/04/2013 07:13 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: Not so much confused as simply merged. Input processing is inherently single-threaded; it makes sense to rely on that at the highest level possible. I would disagree entirely. You want to minimise the areas affected by a given lock. You also

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-11 Thread Peter Hurley
On 12/04/2013 07:13 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: Not so much confused as simply merged. Input processing is inherently single-threaded; it makes sense to rely on that at the highest level possible. I would disagree entirely. You want to minimise the areas affected by a given lock. You also

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-09 Thread Peter Hurley
On 12/08/2013 08:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 04:12:01PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote: Greg, Sometimes when interrupting terminal output, the '^C' won't be echoed until more output is echoed. This is fairly repeatable by interrupting 'cat large-file'. The common

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-09 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 04:12:01PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote: > Greg, > > Sometimes when interrupting terminal output, the '^C' won't be echoed > until more output is echoed. This is fairly repeatable by interrupting > 'cat large-file'. > > The common reason for this is because the tty write

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-09 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 04:12:01PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote: Greg, Sometimes when interrupting terminal output, the '^C' won't be echoed until more output is echoed. This is fairly repeatable by interrupting 'cat large-file'. The common reason for this is because the tty write buffer is

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-09 Thread Peter Hurley
On 12/08/2013 08:12 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 04:12:01PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote: Greg, Sometimes when interrupting terminal output, the '^C' won't be echoed until more output is echoed. This is fairly repeatable by interrupting 'cat large-file'. The common

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-04 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
> Not so much confused as simply merged. Input processing is inherently > single-threaded; it makes sense to rely on that at the highest level > possible. I would disagree entirely. You want to minimise the areas affected by a given lock. You also want to lock data not code. Correctness comes

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-04 Thread Peter Hurley
On 12/03/2013 09:20 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: These types of nested lock problems are common when different layers use the same interface (the fb subsystem's use of the vt driver is another example). They are, and they end up nasty and eventually become impossible to fix. Better to fix

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-04 Thread Peter Hurley
On 12/03/2013 09:20 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: These types of nested lock problems are common when different layers use the same interface (the fb subsystem's use of the vt driver is another example). They are, and they end up nasty and eventually become impossible to fix. Better to fix

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-04 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
Not so much confused as simply merged. Input processing is inherently single-threaded; it makes sense to rely on that at the highest level possible. I would disagree entirely. You want to minimise the areas affected by a given lock. You also want to lock data not code. Correctness comes before

Re: Convert termios to RCU (was Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo)

2013-12-03 Thread Peter Hurley
On 12/03/2013 12:23 PM, Peter Hurley wrote: On 12/03/2013 09:20 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: As a PS: I think the termios is probably an RCU problem. The semaphore seemed to make sense when I did it, but in hindsight I think I made the wrong call. Unfortunately, not without overhauling the

Convert termios to RCU (was Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo)

2013-12-03 Thread Peter Hurley
On 12/03/2013 09:20 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: As a PS: I think the termios is probably an RCU problem. The semaphore seemed to make sense when I did it, but in hindsight I think I made the wrong call. Alan, Converting safe termios access to RCU is a really good idea. Massive changeset

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-03 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
> These types of nested lock problems are common when different layers use > the same interface (the fb subsystem's use of the vt driver is another > example). They are, and they end up nasty and eventually become impossible to fix. Better to fix the underlying fundamental error as and when we

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-03 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
These types of nested lock problems are common when different layers use the same interface (the fb subsystem's use of the vt driver is another example). They are, and they end up nasty and eventually become impossible to fix. Better to fix the underlying fundamental error as and when we can.

Convert termios to RCU (was Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo)

2013-12-03 Thread Peter Hurley
On 12/03/2013 09:20 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: As a PS: I think the termios is probably an RCU problem. The semaphore seemed to make sense when I did it, but in hindsight I think I made the wrong call. Alan, Converting safe termios access to RCU is a really good idea. Massive changeset

Re: Convert termios to RCU (was Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo)

2013-12-03 Thread Peter Hurley
On 12/03/2013 12:23 PM, Peter Hurley wrote: On 12/03/2013 09:20 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: As a PS: I think the termios is probably an RCU problem. The semaphore seemed to make sense when I did it, but in hindsight I think I made the wrong call. Unfortunately, not without overhauling the

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-02 Thread Peter Hurley
On 12/02/2013 07:01 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: I cc'd you because of your recent involvement in other tty patches/bug fixes and because it's your FIXME comment. Feel free to ignore and/or let me know you would prefer not to be bothered. It does seem horribly convoluted and likely to dig

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-02 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
> I cc'd you because of your recent involvement in other > tty patches/bug fixes and because it's your FIXME comment. > Feel free to ignore and/or let me know you would prefer not to > be bothered. It does seem horribly convoluted and likely to dig bigger long term holes than the one its filling.

[PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-02 Thread Peter Hurley
Greg, Sometimes when interrupting terminal output, the '^C' won't be echoed until more output is echoed. This is fairly repeatable by interrupting 'cat large-file'. The common reason for this is because the tty write buffer is full, even though the write buffer _should_ have been flushed

[PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-02 Thread Peter Hurley
Greg, Sometimes when interrupting terminal output, the '^C' won't be echoed until more output is echoed. This is fairly repeatable by interrupting 'cat large-file'. The common reason for this is because the tty write buffer is full, even though the write buffer _should_ have been flushed

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-02 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
I cc'd you because of your recent involvement in other tty patches/bug fixes and because it's your FIXME comment. Feel free to ignore and/or let me know you would prefer not to be bothered. It does seem horribly convoluted and likely to dig bigger long term holes than the one its filling. The

Re: [PATCH tty-next 0/4] tty: Fix ^C echo

2013-12-02 Thread Peter Hurley
On 12/02/2013 07:01 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: I cc'd you because of your recent involvement in other tty patches/bug fixes and because it's your FIXME comment. Feel free to ignore and/or let me know you would prefer not to be bothered. It does seem horribly convoluted and likely to dig