3 ms·

I don't have a strong opinion on the topic (I never really bothered to look under the hood but from a purely user perspective USB has been quite serviceable for

by simias 7y ago

I don't have a strong opinion on the topic (I never really bothered to look under the hood but from a purely user perspective USB has been quite serviceable for me so far) but I think you're begging the question: >You don't have direct interrupt lines like in PCI. Surely the people who've designed USB could have opted to add an interrupt signal if they had deemed it necessary. Sure it would've added one more signal but given that there were only 4 pins on the original USB it doesn't seem overwhelming. That being said I agree with you that dismissing polling wholesale without digging deeper is quite silly, it can be a problem when it increases latency or wastes CPU cycles but as far as I know latency isn't much of an issue in most uses of USB (even for things like keyboards, mouses and controller it's usually dwarfed by the latency of the video pipeline) and I doubt anybody handles the USB phy in software so CPU usage shouldn't be a worry.

bravo22 7y ago
The whole point of USB is reduced wiring. Side channel interrupt would not have made sense. "Polling" doesn't involves the host CPU, adds no latency. It is done by the USB controller, which sends poll packets to the device. This is all a philosophical decision by USB which is master/slave and doesn't support anything asynchronous by the slave. The master can choose to ignore certain slaves on the bus if it desires, which isn't always possible with an asynchronous slave. Recall that many devices dangle off a single USB chain.
cjbprime 7y ago
> it can be a problem when it increases latency or wastes CPU cycles I think it wastes power. On a setup with interrupts, you could clock gate the host controller and if the device needs to say something it can raise the interrupt line and wake up the host. I don't think there's a way to clock gate a USB1 controller and then do e.g. wake on LAN.

by simias 7y ago

bravo22 7y ago

The whole point of USB is reduced wiring. Side channel interrupt would not have made sense. "Polling" doesn't involves the host CPU, adds no latency. It is done by the USB controller, which sends poll packets to the device. This is all a philosophical decision by USB which is master/slave and doesn't support anything asynchronous by the slave. The master can choose to ignore certain slaves on the bus if it desires, which isn't always possible with an asynchronous slave. Recall that many devices dangle off a single USB chain.

cjbprime 7y ago

> it can be a problem when it increases latency or wastes CPU cycles I think it wastes power. On a setup with interrupts, you could clock gate the host controller and if the device needs to say something it can raise the interrupt line and wake up the host. I don't think there's a way to clock gate a USB1 controller and then do e.g. wake on LAN.