On Monday 10 June 2013 17:23:46 Ming Lei wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Oliver Neukum <oliver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sunday 09 June 2013 23:18:28 Ming Lei wrote: > >> 2), the biggest change is the situation in which usb_submit_urb() is called > >> in complete() callback, so the introduced tasklet schedule delay might be a > >> con, but it shouldn't be a big deal: > >> > >> - control/bulk asynchronous transfer isn't sensitive to schedule > >> delay > > > > That is debatable.Missing a frame boundary is expensive because the increased > > latency then translates into lower throughput. > > Suppose so, considered that bulk transfer will do large data block transfer, and > the extra frame or uFrame doesn't matter over the whole transfer time. That is not true for all use cases. Networking looks vulnerable. Regards Oliver -- 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
