[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/1] can: add pruss CAN driver.
Hi Oliver,

sorry for the late answer.

On 05/23/2011 08:21 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> On 22.05.2011 12:30, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Thursday 12 May 2011 16:41:58 Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>> E.g. assume you need the CAN-IDs 0x100, 0x200 and 0x300 in your application
>>> and for that reason you configure these IDs in the pruss CAN driver.
>>> What if someone generates a 100% CAN busload exactly on CAN-ID 0x100 then?
>>> Worst case (1MBit/s, DLC=0) you would need to handle about 21.000 irqs/s for
>>> the correctly received CAN frames with the filtered CAN-ID 0x100 ...
>> Then I guess the main thing that a "smart" CAN implementation like pruss
>> should do is interrupt mitigation. When you have a constant flow of
>> packets coming in, the hardware should be able to DMA a lot of
>> them into kernel memory before the driver is required to pick them up,
>> and only get into interrupt driven mode when the kernel has managed
>> to process all outstanding packets.
>>> This all depends heavily on Linux networking (skb handling, caching, etc) and
>>> is pretty fast and optimized!! That was also the reason why it ran on the old
>>> PowerPC that smoothly. The mostly seen effect if anything drops is when the
>>> application (holding the socket) was not fast enough to handle the incoming
>>> data. NB: For that reason we implemented a CAN content filter (CAN_BCM) that
>>> is able to do content filtering and timeout monitoring in Kernelspace - all
>>> performed in the SoftIRQ.
>> Right, dropping packets that no process is waiting for should be done as
>> early as possible. In pruss-can, the idea was to do it in hardware, which
>> doesn't really work all that well for the reasons discussed before.
>> Dropping the frames in the NAPI poll function (softirq time) seems like a
>> logical choice.
> In 'real world' CAN setups you'll never see 21.000 CAN frames per second (and
> therefore 21.000 irqs/s) - you are usually designing CAN network traffic with
> less than 60% busload. So interrupt rates somewhere below 1000 irqs/s can be
> assumed.
>>From what i've seen so far a 3-4 messages rx FIFO and NAPI support just make it.

I think you speak about the SJA100 which is able to buffer 64 byte
corresponding to up to 4 messages. There are CAN controllers able to
queue more or just one message and then NAPI adds overhead.

> @Marc/Wolfgang: Would this be also your recommendation for a CAN controller
> design that supports SocketCAN in the best way?

Anyway, NAPI *always* useful as it helps with the infamous interrupt


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-27 10:31    [W:0.129 / U:31.828 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site