--- Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

quoted text
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 juanslayton@dslextreme.com wrote:
> > If I understand your analysis, Aivils' problem is because the UHCI
> > controllers are too slow.
> 
> Not just that; it also is a question of scheduling.  The uhci-hcd
> driver isn't very clever about scheduling, and it tries to put all the
> packets into the same frame.  If the packets were distributed among
> multiple frames then the limit would be considerably higher (eight
> times higher in this case).
> 
> I'm not sure of the scheduling details in the ohci-hcd driver; they
> might well be more flexible than in uhci-hcd.  In which case a single
> OHCI controller would be able to handle up to 32 of these keyboards, 
> even though it is no faster than a UHCI controller.

The OHCI scheduling is pretty simple and compact.  I'd think it would
be easy enough to make UHCI do the same sort of thing:  track bandwidth
assigned to 2^N frames (OHCI hardware imposes a smaller limit for N
than UHCI hardware does), and pick the least loaded of those frames to
use for new transfers.  In ohci-q.c see balance(), periodic_{,un}link().

Thing is that would involve changing how UHCI manages periodic transfers;
assuming it hasn't changed those structures since last I looked.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/