On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 10:08 AM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2022, 9:58 AM Christian MAUDERER > <christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: >> >> Am 02.06.22 um 16:19 schrieb Joel Sherrill: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 8:58 AM Christian MAUDERER >> > <christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de >> > <mailto:christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote: >> > >> > Am 02.06.22 um 15:49 schrieb Gedare Bloom: >> > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 2:28 AM Sebastian Huber >> > > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de >> > <mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> On 02/06/2022 09:27, Christian MAUDERER wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> Am 01.06.22 um 14:46 schrieb Gedare Bloom: >> > >>>> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 6:21 AM Christian Mauderer >> > >>>> <christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de >> > <mailto:christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Typical embedded systems don't have that much memory. Reduce >> > the buffer >> > >>>>> size to something more sensible for the usual type of >> > application. >> > >>>>> --- >> > >>>>> freebsd/sys/dev/ffec/if_ffec.c | 8 ++++++++ >> > >>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> diff --git a/freebsd/sys/dev/ffec/if_ffec.c >> > >>>>> b/freebsd/sys/dev/ffec/if_ffec.c >> > >>>>> index 47c0f770..4c1e147b 100644 >> > >>>>> --- a/freebsd/sys/dev/ffec/if_ffec.c >> > >>>>> +++ b/freebsd/sys/dev/ffec/if_ffec.c >> > >>>>> @@ -139,9 +139,17 @@ static struct ofw_compat_data >> > compat_data[] = { >> > >>>>> /* >> > >>>>> * Driver data and defines. The descriptor counts must be >> > a power >> > >>>>> of two. >> > >>>>> */ >> > >>>>> +#ifndef __rtems__ >> > >>>>> #define RX_DESC_COUNT 512 >> > >>>>> +#else /* __rtems__ */ >> > >>>>> +#define RX_DESC_COUNT 64 >> > >>>>> +#endif /* __rtems__ */ >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Do we need some way to control this parameter? Or, how will this >> > >>>> appear if it breaks something? >> > >>> >> > >>> I don't expect that there will be any problems. But I can take >> > a look >> > >>> how I can make that a parameter. >> > >> >> > >> Can we please keep this a compile time constant as it is. The 64 >> > >> descriptors should be more than enough. >> > >> >> > > I don't mind the reduction of the constant, but it would be good to >> > > predict what behavior might indicate this was exceeded. I guess it >> > > should be some kind of errno on an allocation request though? So it >> > > should be fine, but if a user hits this limit, I guess they have >> > > pretty limited options to overcome it. >> > >> > Reducing the limit won't cause errors. It will only means that if you >> > flood the target with network packets, it will cache less packets and >> > start dropping them earlier. That means: >> > >> > On a short packet burst, some packets will be dropped and (for TCP) >> > some >> > have to be re-transmitted. So for short bursts it can be a slight >> > disadvantage. >> > >> > On a constant overload situation: It doesn't really make a difference >> > because the target wouldn't be able to process the packages anyway. It >> > might even is an advantage because the processor doesn't have to >> > process >> > packets that are already outdated and maybe re-transmitted. >> > >> > >> > How much RAM does this save versus having control over the size of >> > UDP and TCP RX/TX buffers like we had in the legacy stack? I recall >> > being able to control the various buffer sizes saved a LOT of memory >> > on applications I used these parameters on. >> > >> > There we had four configuration values. Any chance this has a hint >> > in FreeBSD now or we can provide the same tuning? >> > >> > rtems_set_udp_buffer_sizes( >> > rtems_bsdnet_config.udp_tx_buf_size, >> > rtems_bsdnet_config.udp_rx_buf_size >> > ); >> > >> > rtems_set_tcp_buffer_sizes( >> > rtems_bsdnet_config.tcp_tx_buf_size, >> > rtems_bsdnet_config.tcp_rx_buf_size >> > ); >> > >> >> Are you sure that this is the same buffer? The parameter in this patch >> is a driver specific ring buffer of rx descriptors. The parameter that >> you mention sounds more like a general network stack buffer (although I >> have to say that I don't know these functions of the old stack). > > > I know it isn't the same buffers. It is just likely this has an impact also > on fitting into a lower ram environment. And would be general not specific to > a driver. > >> >> Regarding the sizes: >> >> The driver allocates one mbuf for each buffer. It's a bit tricky to tell >> exactly how big one MBUF is. FreeBSD does a lot of abstraction there. >> But a debugger tells me that after the initialization one buffer is: >> >> sc->rxbuf_map[0].mbuf->m_len = 2048 >> >> That means that I reduced the buffers that are cached in the driver for >> sending data from 512 * 2kiB = 1MiB to 64 * 2kiB = 128kiB for the >> receive direction. Note that our default size for all mbufs in the stack >> is 8MiB (RTEMS_BSD_ALLOCATOR_DOMAIN_PAGE_MBUF_DEFAULT). So 1MiB is a >> relevant part of that. And that's only for one direction! >> >> The Tx buffers only have some management information allocated. They >> will get buffers as soon as there is something to send. But if the >> device can't send fast enough to get rid of the data, it will be most >> likely a similar amount of memory. > > > Yep. Just wondering if more was needed. > > Thanks for the clarifications. Both patches look good to me. My only concern now, which is really quite general to libbsd, is that we do not capture many of these decisions within the code. This means in the future for example if FreeBSD changes some things that we changed, it may be more work to remember why we made our changes originally. I think this is a general problem we have in libbsd, and not something to hold up your patches--but it may be worth considering within the libbsd code conventions if we need to adopt any kind of standard way of commenting our modifications to the upstream.
>> >> Again: That's only the buffers in the driver. Not any buffers on higher >> layers. >> >> Best regards >> >> Christian >> >> > --joel >> > >> > >> > Best regards >> > >> > Christian >> >> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------- >> embedded brains GmbH >> Herr Christian MAUDERER >> Dornierstr. 4 >> 82178 Puchheim >> Germany >> email: christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de >> phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18 >> fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08 >> >> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München >> Registernummer: HRB 157899 >> Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler >> Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier: >> https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
