Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >>> Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >>> >>>> let's look the the cangen source if there's propper error handling... >>>> http://svn.berlios.de/viewvc/socketcan/trunk/can-utils/cangen.c?revision=787&view=markup >>>> nope, there isn't >>>> >>>> There's the option "-i" to ignore ENOBUFS, which is....we don't want to >>>> do that.... >>>> >>> I added a new "-p <timeout>" option to the cangen tool in the SocketCAN SVN. >>> >>> Thanks for the suggestion! >>> >>> Just fyi there's no significant difference in CPU usage or CAN bus load with >> Hm, that does surprise me. At what bitrate are you testing? >> > > I was testing @500kBit/s with an EMS PCMCIA Card connected directly to a PEAK > USB Adapter (with termination). > > Using > > cangen can0 -g0 -i -x > > the generated busload was ca. 1-2% higher and the Gnome CPU systemmonitor > indicated a slightly lower CPU usage than with > > cangen can0 -g0 -p 1 -x > > You may try this on our own. So even when the "ignore enobufs" approach looks > a bit silly, it has a (positive) difference to the poll implementation. > > No idea why it is like this ...
Just did some test at 125 Kb/s on my MPC5200 and can confirm your results: almost 100% CPU usage in both cases. poll() seems not to block. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
