Hi,
On 05/25/2015 03:30 AM, fx IWATA NOBUO wrote:
Hello,
I see your point and what you have done in patches.
I'm only showing you that you may achieve almost the same effect
without any changes in kernel.
I tested wstunnel.
The performance comparison in my environment is as following.
Round trip time of keyboard key down and up URBs at host.
wstunnel: 4.4msec
usbws(my patch): 2.7msec
wstunnel passes TCP/IP stack twice so it's slower.
I'd like to keep the usbws implementation because it's worth for
performance.
memory usage (VSZ/RSS)
wstunnel usbws
Server wstunnel 734K/20K
usbipa 25K/2K
usbwsa 25K/2K
Client wstunnel 75K/17K
usbipa 113K/3K
I don't say that wstunnel is the best implementation of this
functionality. There is plenty implementations of such tunneling daemons
and wstunnel is only an example.
Maybe with other daemon or if you write your own one you will get better
performance. It is obvious that it will never be as fast as dedicated
implementation but the difference may be small enough.
--
Krzysztof Opasiak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
