On di, 22 okt 2019 14:58:42 -0500, Elenita Hinds wrote: > Sorry for the delay. Responses below .. > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:16 PM Kurt Van Dijck > <dev.kurt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hey, > > > > On do, 17 okt 2019 15:37:04 -0500, Elenita Hinds wrote: > > > I pulled in the c_can patches from the for-kurt branch (63574e9 thru > > > bf01f717) and tested on my device. > > > The number of overruns are noticeably fewer; however, the overall > > > system performance seems to have slowed down. For example, > > > the console response and Bluetooth data rate are noticeably slower. > > > > You now give more precedence to CAN and less to console etc. ? > > > > [eh] No. The priorities are the same or however Linux handles > interrupt priorities. The CAN irq now takes more work in the IRQ handler, while doing less in the softirq. You could consider this less polite. When you use IRQ threads (my case using RT patch), it allows precise control of priorities of each IRQ, more than when the work is done in softirq. I assume you run a regular kernel, no IRQ threads. You may observe decreased performance of other subsystems when the CAN irq takes high load. Kurt
