Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >>> 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. >
I configured cangen to produce the same output a done by the ptx cansequence with " -I 2 -L 1 -D i " : cangen can0 -I 2 -L 1 -D i -g 0 -i 71% - 72% busload , 95% CPU cangen can0 -I 2 -L 1 -D i -g 0 -p 1 69% busload , 95% CPU cansequence -p 69% busload , 95% CPU That's it. The 5% goes to Xorg running "candump any" and "canbusload c...@500000 c...@500000 -r -c -b -t" Regards, Oliver _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
