Long ago I measured the impact of the linux low_latency flag on a 16550 UART. I don't know where that data is sitting now, but I remember that it made a significant difference.
> On Jul 18, 2016, at 9:59 PM, Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> wrote: > > > jim...@earthlink.net said: >> except that virtually every UART in use today has some sort of buffering >> (whether a FIFO or double buffering) between the CPU interface and the bits >> on the wire, which completely desynchronizes the bits on the wire from the >> CPU interface. > > The idea was to reduce the CPU load processing interrupts by batching things > up. > > Some of those chips generate an interrupt when the see a return or line-feed > character. > > Most of them have an option to disable that batching. On Linux the setserial > command has a low_latency option. I haven't measured the difference. It > would be a fun experiment. > > > -- > These are my opinions. I hate spam. > > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.