On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
I was only testing reading the data so I didn't see any caching
effects since I don't have a device or driver which I can send a lot
data out.
As far as I understand
On Sat, 5 Oct 2013, Ming Lei wrote:
The buffer should be cached. The userspace program will have to make
sure that it doesn't try to access the buffer while DMA is in progress.
As long as that restriction is obeyed, the USB core will take care of
mapping the buffer for DMA (which flushes
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Sat, 5 Oct 2013, Ming Lei wrote:
The buffer should be cached. The userspace program will have to make
sure that it doesn't try to access the buffer while DMA is in progress.
As long as that restriction is
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
to explain why Isochronous makes such a difference, the kernel driver
doesn't do the
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data transfers, it allows to pre-allocate usb transfer buffers.
The CPU usage decreases 1-2% on my 1.3ghz U7300 notebook
The CPU usage decreases 6-8% on an Intel Atom n270
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On the whole this seems reasonable. There are a few stylistic things
that could be cleaned up (missing blank lines after variable
declarations, for example, and other checkpatch issues), but they are
minor.
Why do
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
The biggest problem is that your proc_alloc_memory() routine doesn't
call usbfs_increase_memory_usage(). Without that, there's nothing to
prevent a user from allocating all the available kernel memory.
only root is supposed to have raw USB
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
The biggest problem is that your proc_alloc_memory() routine doesn't
call usbfs_increase_memory_usage(). Without that, there's nothing to
prevent a user from
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Marcel Holtmann mar...@holtmann.org wrote:
Hi Markus,
Do you have a userspace test program that we can use to verify that this
does work, and that others can use to run on some different platforms to
verify that this is actually faster?
You will need one of
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Marcel Holtmann mar...@holtmann.org wrote:
Hi Markus,
Do you have a userspace test program that we can use to verify that
this
does work, and that others can use to run on some
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
to explain why Isochronous makes such a difference, the kernel driver
doesn't do the memset anymore for each urb packet.
However that patch addresses multiple issues
* Isochronous improvement by removing memset for each packet
* Pre-Allocation to
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
to explain why Isochronous makes such a difference, the kernel driver
doesn't do the memset anymore for each urb packet.
However that patch addresses multiple issues
*
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
to follow up I know why it doesn't happen anymore because customers
are using a kernel module which does optimized transfers and
pre-allocated the URBs and transfer
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, but here not only small buffers are the problem, also latency.
I will send another patch version which overrides the SG transfer once
a preallocated buffer is submitted. The current patch will only use
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ming Lei tom.leim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, but here not only small buffers are the problem, also latency.
I will send another patch version which overrides the SG transfer
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ming Lei tom.leim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, but here not only small buffers are the problem,
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data transfers, it allows to pre-allocate usb transfer buffers.
The CPU usage decreases 1-2% on my 1.3ghz U7300 notebook
The CPU usage
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 04:02:56PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data transfers, it allows to pre-allocate usb transfer buffers.
The CPU usage decreases 1-2% on my 1.3ghz U7300 notebook
The CPU usage decreases 6-8% on
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:51:58PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
I searched with google, obviously no one is using USBFS/userspace USB
drivers that intensive as we do because (streaming 6mb for DVB or 20mb
for Analog over days) the only bug reports that come up are related to
our devices and
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 04:02:56PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data transfers, it allows to pre-allocate usb transfer buffers.
The CPU usage
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Ming Lei tom.leim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data transfers, it allows to pre-allocate usb transfer buffers.
The
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:51:58PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
I searched with google, obviously no one is using USBFS/userspace USB
drivers that intensive as we do because (streaming 6mb for DVB or 20mb
for Analog
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 07:32:56PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 04:02:56PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 07:32:56PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 04:02:56PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
This
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
Do you have a userspace test program that we can use to verify that this
does work, and that others can use to run on some different platforms to
verify that this is actually faster?
You will need one of our devices for testing I
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
Do you have a userspace test program that we can use to verify that this
does work, and that others can use to run on some different platforms to
verify that this
Hi Markus,
Do you have a userspace test program that we can use to verify that this
does work, and that others can use to run on some different platforms to
verify that this is actually faster?
You will need one of our devices for testing I guess. Some scanners
(which use USBFS) or other
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Ming Lei tom.leim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Ming Lei wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch adds memory
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Ming Lei wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Ming Lei wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
Actually I observed both throughput and cpu utilization can be improved
with the 4GB of DMA limit on either 32bit arch or 64bit arch, wrt. direct
I/O
over usb mass storage block device.
I didn't look into the sg API in detail yet, but
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
Actually I observed both throughput and cpu utilization can be improved
with the 4GB of DMA limit on either 32bit arch or 64bit arch, wrt. direct
I/O
over usb mass
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
Very few non-xHCI controllers can do DMA above the 4 GB limit.
Yes, but I am wondering non-xHCI need this kind of zero copy
optimization, since very few user space drivers complain or care
performance or cpu
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
How about the initial patch, is it okay so far?
I haven't had time to look through it yet.
There's a settopbox manufacturer who pushed it to his next firmware
release so we can do some additional performance measuring as well.
My next step would
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
How about the initial patch, is it okay so far?
I haven't had time to look through it yet.
There's a settopbox manufacturer who pushed it to his next firmware
release
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
My next step would be to eliminate the kmallocs/kfrees for the single
urbs (just by allocating the urbs with the same mechanism and passing
the returned pointer to SUBMIT_URB).
The time spent allocating and freeing URBs is probably pretty
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
My next step would be to eliminate the kmallocs/kfrees for the single
urbs (just by allocating the urbs with the same mechanism and passing
the returned pointer to
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
My
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
I hope the SG transfer does not introduce any latency issues we have
some usb chipsets which are very picky about latency issues on
embedded systems.
The latency for SG transfers should be smaller than for non-SG.
We got it work by tuning the
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
I put together a few reports:
http://support.sundtek.com/index.php/topic,350.0.html
http://support.sundtek.com/index.php/topic,1097.msg7780.html#msg7780
http://support.sundtek.com/index.php/topic,411.msg2153.html#msg2153
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013, Markus Rechberger wrote:
to follow up I know why it doesn't happen anymore because customers
are using a kernel module which does optimized transfers and
pre-allocated the URBs and transfer buffer in kernelspace, the
interface just copies the datastream to our actual
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:12:39PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data transfers, it allows to pre-allocate usb transfer buffers.
Does libusb
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data transfers, it allows to pre-allocate usb transfer buffers.
The CPU usage decreases 1-2% on my 1.3ghz U7300 notebook when
transferring
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Ming Lei wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data transfers, it allows to pre-allocate usb transfer buffers.
The CPU usage decreases 1-2% on
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, Ming Lei wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data transfers, it
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:12:39PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data transfers, it allows to pre-allocate usb transfer buffers.
Does libusb support this?
The CPU usage decreases 1-2% on my 1.3ghz U7300 notebook when
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:12:39PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data transfers, it allows to pre-allocate usb transfer buffers.
Does libusb
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:12:39PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Markus Rechberger
mrechber...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch adds memory mapping support to USBFS for isochronous and bulk
data transfers, it allows to pre-allocate usb transfer buffers.
The CPU usage decreases 1-2% on my 1.3ghz U7300 notebook when
transferring
48 matches
Mail list logo
