Hello Marc and Andrew, On Tuesday 03 of May 2022 08:46:26 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 03.05.2022 16:32:32, Andrew Dennison wrote: > > > > When value is configurable then for (uncommon) number > > > > of buffers which is not power of two, there will be likely > > > > a problem with way how buffers queue is implemented > > > > Only power of 2 makes sense to me: I didn't consider those corner > > cases but the driver could just round down to the next power of 2 and > > warn about a misconfiguration of the IP core. > > +1 Then (n-1) mask be used instead of modulo which is what I used for these kind of queues. https://sourceforge.net/p/ulan/ulut/ci/master/tree/ulut/ul_dqfifo.h > > I added the dynamic detection because the IP core default had changed > > to 2 TX buffers and this broke some hard coded assumptions in the > > driver in a rather obscure way that had me debugging for a bit... > > The mainline driver uses a hard coded default of 4 still... Can you > provide that patch soonish? We discuss with Ondrej Ille final location of the bits with queue length information etc... The version 3.0 of the core is in development still. So I do not like to introduce something which would break compatability with future revisions. Yes, we can check for version reported by IP core but when it is possible I would not introduce such logic... So if it gets to 5.19 it would be great but if we should risk incompatible changes or too cluttered logic then it will be 5.20 material. Other option is to add Kconfig option to specify maximal number of TX buffers used by the driver for now. > > > You can make use of more TX buffers, if you implement (fully > > > hardware based) TX IRQ coalescing (== handle more than one TX > > > complete interrupt at a time) like in the mcp251xfd driver, or BQL > > > support (== send more than one TX CAN frame at a time). I've played > > > a bit with BQL support on the mcp251xfd driver (which is attached by > > > SPI), but with mixed results. Probably an issue with proper > > > configuration. > > > > Reducing CAN IRQ load would be good. > > IRQ coalescing comes at the price of increased latency, but if you have > a timeout in hardware you can configure the latencies precisely. HW coalescing not considered yet. Generally my intention for CAN use is usually robotic and motion control and there is CAN and even CAN FD on edge with its latencies already and SocketCAN layer adds yet another level due common tasklets and threads with other often dense and complex protocols on ETHERNET so to lover CPU load by IRQ coalescing is not my priority. We have done latencies evaluation of SocketCAN, LinCAN and RTEMS years ago on Oliver Hartkopp's requests on standard and fully-preemptive kernels on more targets (x86, PowerPC, ...) and I hope that we revive CAN Bench project on Xilinx Zynq based MZ_APO again, see Martin Jerabek's theses FPGA Based CAN Bus Channels Mutual Latency Tester and Evaluation, 2016 https://gitlab.fel.cvut.cz/canbus/zynq/zynq-can-sja1000-top/wikis/uploads/56b4d27d8f81ae390fc98bdce803398f/F3-BP-2016-Jerabek-Martin-Jerabek-thesis-2016.pdf It is actual work of Matej Vasilevski. So I hope to have again more insight into latencies on CAN. By the way, I plan to speak with Carsten Emde on Embedded World if these is interrest to add continuous HW timestamping based CAN latencies testing into OSADL QA Farm https://www.osadl.org/OSADL-QA-Farm-Real-time.linux-real-time.0.html Other option is to setup system and run it locally at CTU as we run complete CI on CTU CAN FD. > > > > We need 2 * priv->ntxbufs range to distinguish empty and full > > > > queue... But modulo is not nice either so I probably come with > > > > some other solution in a longer term. In the long term, I want to > > > > implement virtual queues to allow multiqueue to use dynamic Tx > > > > priority of up to 8 the buffers... > > > > > > ACK, multiqueue TX support would be nice for things like the > > > Earliest TX Time First scheduler (ETF). 1 TX queue for ETF, the > > > other for bulk messages. > > > > Would be nice, I have multi-queue in the CAN layer I wrote for a > > little RTOS (predates socketcan) and have used for a while. > > Out of interest: > What are the use cases? How did you decide which queue to use? For example for CAN open there should be at least three queues to prevent CAN Tx priority inversion. one for NMT (network management), one for PDO (process data objects) and least priority for SDO (service data objects). That such applications works somehow with single queue is only matter of luck and low level of the link bandwidth utilization. We have done research how to use Linux networking infrastructure to route application send CAN messages into multiple queues according to the CAN ID priorities. There are some results in mainline from that work Rostislav Lisovy 2014: can: Propagate SO_PRIORITY of raw sockets to skbs Rostislav Lisovy 2012: net: em_canid: Ematch rule to match CAN frames according to their identifiers https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/net/sched/em_canid.c So some enhancements and testing in this direction belongs between my long horizon goals. But low priority now because my company and even studnets at university are paid from other projects (silicon-heaven, ESA, Bluetooth-monitoring, NuttX etc.) so Linux CAN is hobby only at this moment. But others have contracts for CTU CAN FD, Skoda Auto testers etc. there... Best wishes, Pavel Pisa phone: +420 603531357 e-mail: pisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Department of Control Engineering FEE CVUT Karlovo namesti 13, 121 35, Prague 2 university: http://control.fel.cvut.cz/ personal: http://cmp.felk.cvut.cz/~pisa projects: https://www.openhub.net/accounts/ppisa CAN related:http://canbus.pages.fel.cvut.cz/ Open Technologies Research Education and Exchange Services https://gitlab.fel.cvut.cz/otrees/org/-/wikis/home
