linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] can: m_can: Add hrtimer to generate software interrupt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5d81aeb6-2b52-5807-5b42-daa87767144f@ti.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:38:58 -0500
From:   "Mendez, Judith" <jm@...com>
To:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
CC:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        Chandrasekar Ramakrishnan <rcsekar@...sung.com>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Andrew Davis <afd@...com>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Schuyler Patton <spatton@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] can: m_can: Add hrtimer to generate software
 interrupt

Hello Marc,

On 4/19/2023 1:13 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 18.04.2023 15:59:57, Mendez, Judith wrote:
>>>>>>>> The "shortest" 11 bit CAN ID CAN frame is a Classical CAN frame with DLC = 0
>>>>>>>> and 1 Mbit/s (arbitration) bitrate. This should be 48 bits @1Mbit => ~50
>>>>>>>> usecs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So it should be something about
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         50 usecs * (FIFO queue len - 2)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where does the "2" come from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought about handling the FIFO earlier than it gets completely "full".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fetching routine would need some time too and the hrtimer could also
>>>>>> jitter to some extend.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was assuming something like this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would argue that the polling time should be:
>>>>>
>>>>>        50 µs * FIFO length - IRQ overhead.
>>>>>
>>>>> The max IRQ overhead depends on your SoC and kernel configuration.
>>>>
>>>> I just tried an educated guess to prevent the FIFO to be filled up
>>>> completely. How can you estimate the "IRQ overhead"? And how do you catch
>>>> the CAN frames that are received while the IRQ is handled?
>>>
>>> We're talking about polling, better call it "overhead" or "latency from
>>> timer expiration until FIFO has at least one frame room". This value
>>> depends on your system.
>>>
>>> It depends on many, many factors, SoC, Kernel configuration (preempt RT,
>>> powersaving, frequency scaling, system load. In your example it's 100
>>> µs. I wanted to say there's an overhead (or latency) and we need enough
>>> space in the FIFO, to cover it.
>>>
>>
>> I am not sure how to estimate IRQ overhead, but FIFO length should be 64
>> elements.
> 
> Ok
> 
>> 50 us * 62 is about 3.1 ms and we are using 1 ms timer polling interval.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
>> Running a few benchmarks showed that using 0.5 ms timer polling interval
>> starts to take a toll on CPU load, that is why I chose 1 ms polling
>> interval.
> 
> However in the code you use 5 ms.

Yes, it was a mistake, will send out a respin with the correct value, 
thanks.

regards,
Judith