how to process data recvd from a device that wont give interrupts
Hi all, I found that you can use a kernel timer and poll for the hardware interrupt registers whether the interrupt flag is set or not, but this will take atleast some good amount of CPU. are there any ways other than using the kernel timer? thanks,
Hi... On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:03 PM, devendra.aaru <devendra.aaru@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I found that you can use a kernel timer and poll for the hardware interrupt registers whether the interrupt flag is set or not,
but this will take atleast some good amount of CPU.
yeah, thing is, as you know, timer fires interrupt and CPU will certainly have to service it. So, it's impossible to work around it IMHO
are there any ways other than using the kernel timer?
perhaps something less intrusive like creating kernel thread and its function is solely checking register state? -- regards, Mulyadi Santosa Freelance Linux trainer and consultant blog: the-hydra.blogspot.com training: mulyaditraining.blogspot.com
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Mulyadi Santosa <mulyadi.santosa@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi...
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:03 PM, devendra.aaru <devendra.aaru@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I found that you can use a kernel timer and poll for the hardware interrupt registers whether the interrupt flag is set or not,
but this will take atleast some good amount of CPU.
yeah, thing is, as you know, timer fires interrupt and CPU will certainly have to service it. So, it's impossible to work around it IMHO
are there any ways other than using the kernel timer?
perhaps something less intrusive like creating kernel thread and its function is solely checking register state?
yes, more or less similar to what the kernel timer does, :) I think actually when i get the data , i am just copying it to my local structures, This job is done in the kernel timer itself, with this itself its taking a 10% of cpu which is actually too much. let me try with softirqs, i am going to use tasklets, what do you think ? :)
-- regards,
Mulyadi Santosa Freelance Linux trainer and consultant
blog: the-hydra.blogspot.com training: mulyaditraining.blogspot.com
softirqs and tasklets run in interrupt context and must not sleep. One cannot use copy_from_user() and copy_to_user() in both of them. Regards Kshemendra On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:24 AM, devendra.aaru <devendra.aaru@gmail.com>wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Mulyadi Santosa <mulyadi.santosa@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi...
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:03 PM, devendra.aaru <devendra.aaru@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I found that you can use a kernel timer and poll for the hardware interrupt registers whether the interrupt flag is set or not,
but this will take atleast some good amount of CPU.
yeah, thing is, as you know, timer fires interrupt and CPU will certainly have to service it. So, it's impossible to work around it IMHO
are there any ways other than using the kernel timer?
perhaps something less intrusive like creating kernel thread and its function is solely checking register state?
yes, more or less similar to what the kernel timer does, :)
I think actually when i get the data , i am just copying it to my local structures,
This job is done in the kernel timer itself, with this itself its taking a 10% of cpu which is actually too much.
let me try with softirqs, i am going to use tasklets, what do you think ? :)
-- regards,
Mulyadi Santosa Freelance Linux trainer and consultant
blog: the-hydra.blogspot.com training: mulyaditraining.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
Hi Devendra, In the kernel thread if you continuously in a loop read a register it will increase the CPU usage. After every register read if data is not ready call a schedule() (or related call). This may help to reduce CPU utilization Regards Kshemendra On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Kshemendra KP <kshemendra@suphalaam.com>wrote:
softirqs and tasklets run in interrupt context and must not sleep. One cannot use copy_from_user() and copy_to_user() in both of them.
Regards
Kshemendra
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:24 AM, devendra.aaru <devendra.aaru@gmail.com>wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Mulyadi Santosa <mulyadi.santosa@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi...
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:03 PM, devendra.aaru <devendra.aaru@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I found that you can use a kernel timer and poll for the hardware interrupt registers whether the interrupt flag is set or not,
but this will take atleast some good amount of CPU.
yeah, thing is, as you know, timer fires interrupt and CPU will certainly have to service it. So, it's impossible to work around it IMHO
are there any ways other than using the kernel timer?
perhaps something less intrusive like creating kernel thread and its function is solely checking register state?
yes, more or less similar to what the kernel timer does, :)
I think actually when i get the data , i am just copying it to my local structures,
This job is done in the kernel timer itself, with this itself its taking a 10% of cpu which is actually too much.
let me try with softirqs, i am going to use tasklets, what do you think ? :)
-- regards,
Mulyadi Santosa Freelance Linux trainer and consultant
blog: the-hydra.blogspot.com training: mulyaditraining.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Kshemendra KP <kshemendra@suphalaam.com> wrote:
Hi Devendra,
In the kernel thread if you continuously in a loop read a register it will increase the CPU usage. After every register read if data is not ready call a schedule() (or related call). This may help to reduce CPU utilization
[please no top posting], I Know, i didn't say i use copy_from(to)user in the softirqs. its wrong, and you can use the copy to (from) user in a different context, ie our fops callbacks. coming to threads, these are also one and the same as your timers, and your threading is wrong, since there is only register read, should be checking at every 10 - 20 msec, so coming back to timers :) no? anyways thanks for letting me know .
participants (3)
-
devendra.aaru -
Kshemendra KP -
Mulyadi Santosa