On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:07:47PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:55:28PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:46:47PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:38:49PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:21:03AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 08:21:54AM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
.. > > > > > > > > any comments? > > > > > > Do we really need to optimize the case when we are dropping events? > > > > It happens frequently, to the point where on some laptops you're pretty much > > guaranteed to get SYN_DROPPED events on resume and sometimes even during > > normal multi-finger user. > > > > I don't have any measurements on how many events are dropped on average. > > Could be one or two, could be several buffer sizes, I honestly don't know. > > I think we need to figure this out. The idea is that dropping events > should be an exception, not a rule. increase the buffer size for the devices I guess, with some heuristics maybe. you could dynamically grow the buffer in the kernel, if the buffer gets full or close to full, grow it. but really, this is a moving target, eventually you will get the SYN_DROPPED. if a client sleeps for a second or more, the events from a second ago are likely useless anyway, so the need for an atomic sync exists regardless. fwiw, I can live with a atomic sync that clears the client buffer provided I get the correct state. any optimisation on top of that can be done afterwards. Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
