[Ovmsdev] OVMS Poller module/singleton
Michael Balzer
dexter at expeedo.de
Sat May 18 14:05:11 HKT 2024
> I'm not sure whether the 'max' should be the maximum of the smoothed
> value.. or the maximum of the raw value.
It should normally be the maximum of the raw value I think, the maximum
of the smoothed value cannot tell about how bad the processing of an ID
can become.
The naming in the table is a bit confusing I think. (besides: I've never
seen "ave" as the abbreviation for average)
If I understand you correctly, "time ms per s" is the time share in per
mille, so something in that direction would be more clear, and "length
ms" would then be "time [ms]".
The totals for all averages in the table foot would also be nice.
Maybe "Ave" (or avg?) also should be placed on the left, as the "peak"
label now suggests being the peak of the average.
Btw, keep in mind, not all "edge" users / testers are developers (e.g.
the Twizy driver I'm in contact with), collecting stats feedback for
vehicles from testers should be straight forward. Maybe add a
data/history record, sent automatically on every drive/charge stop when
the poller tracing is on?
Regards,
Michael
Am 18.05.24 um 02:28 schrieb Michael Geddes:
> You did say max/pead value. I also halved the N for both.
> I'm not sure whether the 'max' should be the maximum of the smoothed
> value.. or the maximum of the raw value.
> This is currently the raw-value maximum.
> The problem is that the middle column is the maximum of the {{sum over
> 10s} / (10*1000,000)
> I could easily change the 'period' to 1s and see how that goes.. was
> just trying to reduce the larger calculations.
>
>
> Usage: poller [pause|resume|status|times|trace]
>
> OVMS# poller time status
> Poller timing is: on
> Type | Count | Ave time | Ave length
> | per s | ms per s | ms
> -------------+----------+-----------+-----------
> Poll:PRI | 1.00| 0.559| 0.543
> peak | | 0.663| 1.528
> -------------+----------+-----------+-----------
> Poll:SRX | 0.08| 0.009| 0.038
> peak | | 0.068| 0.146
> -------------+----------+-----------+-----------
> CAN1 RX[778] | 0.11| 0.061| 0.280
> peak | | 0.458| 1.046
> -------------+----------+-----------+-----------
> CAN1 RX[7a8] | 0.04| 0.024| 0.124
> peak | | 0.160| 0.615
> -------------+----------+-----------+-----------
> CAN1 TX[770] | 0.05| 0.004| 0.016
> peak | | 0.022| 0.102
> -------------+----------+-----------+-----------
> CAN1 TX[7a0] | 0.02| 0.002| 0.011
> peak | | 0.010| 0.098
> -------------+----------+-----------+-----------
> CAN1 TX[7b3] | 0.01| 0.001| 0.006
> peak | | 0.000| 0.099
> -------------+----------+-----------+-----------
> CAN1 TX[7e2] | 0.02| 0.002| 0.011
> peak | | 0.010| 0.099
> -------------+----------+-----------+-----------
> CAN1 TX[7e4] | 0.08| 0.008| 0.048
> peak | | 0.049| 0.107
> -------------+----------+-----------+-----------
> Cmd:State | 0.00| 0.000| 0.005
> peak | | 0.000| 0.094
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 15:26, Michael Geddes
> <frog at bunyip.wheelycreek.net> wrote:
>
> This is what I have now.
> The one on the end is the one MIchael B was after using an N of
> 32. (up for discussion).
>
> The middle is the time spent in that even t per second. It
> accumulates times (in microseconds), and then every 10s it stores
> it as smoothed (N=16) value.
> The Count is similar (except that we store a value of '100' as 1
> event so it can be still integers and has 2 decimal places).
>
> Every received poll does a 64bit difference to 32bit (for the
> elapsed time) and 64bit comparison (for end-of-period).
> It also does 1x 32bit smoothing and 2x 32bit adds.
>
> Then at the end of a 10s period, it will do a 64bit add to get the
> next end-of-period value, as well as the 2x 32bit smoothing calcs.
>
> This is from the Ioniq 5 so not any big values yet. You can
> certainly see how insignificant the TX callbacks are.
> I'll leave it on for when the car is moving and gets some faster
> polling.
>
> OVMS# poll time status
> Poller timing is: on
> Type | Count | Ave time | Ave Length
> | per s | ms per s | ms
> -------------+----------+-----------+-----------
> Poll:PRI | 1.00| 0.540| 0.539
> Poll:SRX | 0.03| 0.004| 0.017
> CAN1 RX[778] | 0.06| 0.042| 0.175
> CAN1 TX[770] | 0.04| 0.002| 0.008
> Cmd:State | 0.01| 0.001| 0.005
>
> ----------------------8<--------------------------------
>
> Nice smoothing class (forces N as a power of 2):
> constexpr unsigned floorlog2(unsigned x)
> {
> return x == 1 ? 0 : 1+floorlog2(x >> 1);
> }
> /* Maintain a smoothed average using shifts for division.
> * T should be an integer type
> * N needs to be a power of 2
> */
> template <typename T, unsigned N>
> class average_util_t
> {
> private:
> T m_ave;
> public:
> average_util_t() : m_ave(0) {}
> static const uint8_t _BITS = floorlog2(N);
> void add( T val)
> {
> static_assert(N == (1 << _BITS), "N must be a power of 2");
> m_ave = (((N-1) * m_ave) + val) >> _BITS;
> }
> T get() { return m_ave; }
> operator T() { return m_ave; }
> };
>
>
>
> On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 10:29, Michael Geddes
> <frog at bunyip.wheelycreek.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks Michael,
>
> My calculations give me ((2^32)-1) / (1000*1000*3600) = only
> 1.2 hours of processing time in 32bit. The initial
> subtraction is 64bit anyway and I can't see a further 64bit
> addition being a problem. I have the calculations being
> performed in doubles at print-out where performance is not
> really an issue anyway. (Though apparently doing 64 bit
> division is worse than floating point).
>
> In addition
> * I currently have this being able to be turned on and off and
> reset manually (only do it when required).
>
> * For the lower volume commands, the smoothed average is not
> going to be useful - the count is more interesting for
> different reasons.
>
> * The total time is quite useful. Ie a high average time
> doesn't matter if the count is low. The things that are
> affecting performance are stuff with high total time. Stuff
> which is happening 100 times a second needs to be a much lower
> average than once a second.
>
> * A measure like 'time per minute/second' and possibly count
> per minute/seconds as a smoothed average would potentially be
> more useful. (or in addition?)
> I think we could do _that_ in a reasonably efficient manner
> using a 64 bit 'last measured time', a 32 bit accumulated
> value and the stored 32 bit rolling average.
> It would boils down to some iterative (integer) sums and
> multiplications plus a divide by n ^ (time periods passed) -
> which is a shift - and which can be optimised to '0' if
> 'time-periods-passed' is more than 32/(bits-per-n) -
> effectively limiting the number of iterations.
> The one issue I can see is that we need to calculate 'number
> of time-periods passed' which is a 64 bit subtraction followed
> by a 32 bit division (not optimisable to a simple shift).
>
> * I'm also happy to keep a rolling (32bit) average time.
> Even if you assume averages in the 100ms, 32bit is going to
> happily support an N of 64 or even 128.
> Am I right in thinking that the choice of N is highly
> dependent on frequency. For things happening 100 times per
> second, you might want an N like 128.. where things happening
> once per
> second, you might want an N of 4 or 8. The other things we
> keep track of in this manner we have a better idea of the
> frequency of the thing.
>
> How about we have (per record type):
> * total count (since last reset?) (32 bit)
> * smoothed average of time per instance (32 bit)
>
> * ?xx? total accumulated time since last reset (64bit) ??
> <-- with the below stats this is much less useful
>
> * last-measured-time (64 bit)
> * accumulated count since last time-period (16bit - but
> maybe 32bit anyway for byte alignment?)
> * smoothed average of count per time-period (32bit)
> * accumulated time since last time-period (32bit)
> * smoothed average of time per time-period (32bit)
>
> It's possible to keep the
>
> Is this going to be too much per record type? The number of
> 'records' we are keeping is quite low (so 10 to 20 maybe) - so
> it's not a huge memory burden.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> //.ichael
> On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 03:09, Michael Balzer via OvmsDev
> <ovmsdev at lists.openvehicles.com> wrote:
>
> esp_timer_get_time() is the right choice for precision timing.
>
> I'd say uint32 is enough though, even if counting
> microseconds that can hold a total of more than 71 hours
> of actual processing time. uint64 has a significant
> performance penalty, although I don't recall the overhead
> for simple additions.
>
> Also & more important, the average wouldn't be my main
> focus, but the maximum processing time seen per ID, which
> seems to be missing in your draft.
>
> Second thought on the average… the exact overall average
> really has a minor meaning, I'd rather see the current
> average, adapting to the current mode of operation
> (drive/charge/…). I suggest feeding the measurements to a
> low pass filter to get the smoothed average of the last n
> measurements. Pattern:
>
> runavg = ((N-1) * runavg + newval) / N
>
> By using a low power of 2 for N (e.g. 8 or 16), you can
> replace the division by a simple bit shift, and have
> enough headroom to use 32 bit integers.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
>
> Am 15.05.24 um 06:51 schrieb Michael Geddes via OvmsDev:
>> Formatting aside, I have implemented what I think Michael
>> B was suggesting. This is a sample run on the Ioniq 5
>> (which doesn't have unsolicited RX events).
>>
>> This uses the call esp_timer_get_time() got get a 64bit
>> *microseconds* since started value - and works out the
>> time to execute that way. It's looking at absolute time
>> and not time in the Task - so other things going on at
>> the same time in other tasks will have an effect. (The
>> normal tick count doesn't have nearly enough resolution
>> to be useful - any other ideas on measurement?) I've got
>> total accumulated time displaying in seconds and the
>> average in milliseconds currently - but I can change that
>> easy enough.
>> The cumulative time is stored as uint64_t which will be
>> plenty, as 32bit wouldn't be nearly enough.
>>
>> OVMS# *poller time on*
>> Poller timing is now on
>>
>> OVMS# *poller time status*
>> Poller timing is: on
>> Poll [PRI] : n=390 tot=0.2s ave=0.586ms
>> Poll [SRX] : n=316 tot=0.1s ave=0.196ms
>> CAN1 RX[0778] : n=382 tot=0.2s ave=0.615ms
>> CAN1 RX[07a8] : n=48 tot=0.0s ave=0.510ms
>> CAN1 RX[07bb] : n=162 tot=0.1s ave=0.519ms
>> CAN1 RX[07ce] : n=33 tot=0.0s ave=0.469ms
>> CAN1 RX[07ea] : n=408 tot=0.2s ave=0.467ms
>> CAN1 RX[07ec] : n=486 tot=0.2s ave=0.477ms
>> CAN3 RX[07df] : n=769 tot=0.2s ave=0.261ms
>> CAN1 TX[0770] : n=191 tot=0.0s ave=0.054ms
>> CAN1 TX[07a0] : n=16 tot=0.0s ave=0.047ms
>> CAN1 TX[07b3] : n=31 tot=0.0s ave=0.069ms
>> CAN1 TX[07c6] : n=11 tot=0.0s ave=0.044ms
>> CAN1 TX[07e2] : n=82 tot=0.0s ave=0.067ms
>> CAN1 TX[07e4] : n=54 tot=0.0s ave=0.044ms
>> Set State : n=7 tot=0.0s ave=0.104ms
>>
>> This is probably going to be quite useful in general!
>> The TX call-backs don't seem to be significant here. (oh,
>> I should probably implement a reset of the values too).
>>
>> //.ichael
>>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 at 22:58, Michael Geddes
>> <frog at bunyip.wheelycreek.net> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah - I certainly wasn't going to put a hard limit.
>> Just a log above a certain time, that being said, the
>> idea of just collecting stats (being able to turn it
>> on via a "poller timer" set of commands) would be
>> much more useful. I'll look into that.
>>
>> Average time is probably a good stat - and certainly
>> what we care about.
>>
>> I actually am hopeful that those couple of things I
>> did might help reduce that average time quite a bit
>> (that short-cutting the isotp protocol handling
>> especially).
>>
>> That p/r with logging changes might help reduce the
>> unproductive log time further, but also makes it
>> possible to turn on the poller logging without the RX
>> task logs kicking in.
>>
>> //.ichael
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 at 22:29, Michael Balzer via
>> OvmsDev <ovmsdev at lists.openvehicles.com> wrote:
>>
>> Warning / gathering debug statistics about slow
>> processing can be helpful, but there must not be
>> a hard limit. Frame/poll response processing may
>> need disk or network I/O, and the vehicle task
>> may be starving from punctual high loads on
>> higher priority tasks (e.g. networking) or by
>> needing to wait for some semaphore -- that's
>> outside the application's control, and must not
>> lead to termination/recreation of the task (in
>> case you're heading towards that direction).
>>
>> I have no idea how much processing time the
>> current vehicles actually need in their
>> respective worst cases. Your draft is probably
>> too lax, poll responses and frames normally need
>> to be processed much faster. I'd say 10 ms is
>> already too slow, but any wait for a
>> queue/semaphore will already mean at least 10 ms
>> (FreeRTOS tick). Probably best to begin with just
>> collecting stats.
>>
>> Btw, to help in narrowing down the actual problem
>> case, the profiler could collect max times per RX
>> message ID.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> Am 12.05.24 um 10:41 schrieb Michael Geddes:
>>> I have a question for Michael B (or whoever) -
>>> I have a commit lined up that would add a bit of
>>> a time check to the poller loop. What do we
>>> expect the maximum time to execute a poller loop
>>> command should be?
>>> This is a rough idea (in ms) I have.. based on
>>> nothing much really, so any ideas would be
>>> appreciated:
>>> int
>>> TardyMaxTime_ms(OvmsPoller::OvmsPollEntryType
>>> entry_type)
>>> {
>>> switch (entry_type)
>>> {
>>> case
>>> OvmsPoller::OvmsPollEntryType::Poll: return 80;
>>> case
>>> OvmsPoller::OvmsPollEntryType::FrameRx: return 30;
>>> case
>>> OvmsPoller::OvmsPollEntryType::FrameTx: return 20;
>>> case
>>> OvmsPoller::OvmsPollEntryType::Command: return 10;
>>> case
>>> OvmsPoller::OvmsPollEntryType::PollState: return 15;
>>> default: return 80;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> //.ichael
>>>
>>> On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 07:45, Michael Geddes
>>> <frog at bunyip.wheelycreek.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I realise that I was only using the standard
>>> cable to test - which probably is not
>>> sufficient - I haven't looked closely at how
>>> the Leaf OBD to Db9 cable is different from
>>> standard.
>>>
>>> Ah, my bad out the queue length. We are
>>> definitely queueing more messages though.
>>> From my log of when the overflow happened,
>>> the poller was in state 0 which means OFF -
>>> ie nothing was being sent!!
>>>
>>> I'll look at the TX message thing - opt in
>>> sounds good - though it shouldn't be playing
>>> that much of a part here as the TXs are
>>> infrequent in this case (or zero when the
>>> leaf is off or driving) - On the ioniq 5
>>> when I'm using the HUD - I'm polling quite
>>> frequently - multiple times per second and
>>> that seems to be fine!.
>>>
>>> I did find an issue with the throttling ..
>>> but it would still mostly apply the
>>> throttling where it matters, so again, it
>>> shouldn't be the problem (also, we aren't
>>> transmitting in the leaf case).
>>>
>>> The change I made to the logging of RX
>>> messages showed how many in a row were
>>> dropped... and it was mostly 1 only in a run
>>> - which means even if it is a short time
>>> between - that means that the drops are
>>> being interleaved by at least one success!
>>>
>>> Sooo.. I'm still wondering what is going
>>> on. Some things I'm going to try:
>>>
>>> * If the number of messages on the Can bus
>>> (coming in through RX) means that the queue
>>> is slowly getting longer and not quite
>>> catching up, then making the queue longer
>>> will help it last longer... but only pushes
>>> the problem down the road.
>>> - Add 'current queue length' to the poller
>>> status information to see if this is indeed
>>> the case?
>>> - Add some kind of alert when the queue
>>> reaches a % full?
>>> * Once you start overflowing and getting
>>> overflow log messages, I wonder if this is
>>> then contributing to the problem.
>>> - Push the overflow logging into Poller
>>> Task which can look at how many drops
>>> occurred since last received item.
>>> * Split up the flags for the poller messages
>>> into 2:
>>> - Messages that are/could be happening in
>>> the TX/RX tasks
>>> - Other noisy messages that always happen
>>> in the poller task.
>>>
>>> Thoughts on what else we might measure to
>>> figure out what is going on?
>>>
>>> //.ichael
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 5 May 2024, 19:29 Michael Balzer via
>>> OvmsDev, <ovmsdev at lists.openvehicles.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> the queue size isn't in bytes, it's in
>>> messages:
>>>
>>>> * @param uxQueueLength The maximum
>>>> number of items that the queue can contain.
>>>> *
>>>> * @param uxItemSize The number of
>>>> bytes each item in the queue will require.
>>>
>>> Also, from the time stamps in Dereks log
>>> excerpt, there were quite some dropped
>>> frames in that time window -- at least
>>> 23 frames in 40 ms, that's bad.
>>>
>>> Queue sizes are currently:
>>>
>>> CONFIG_OVMS_HW_CAN_RX_QUEUE_SIZE=60
>>> CONFIG_OVMS_VEHICLE_CAN_RX_QUEUE_SIZE=60
>>>
>>> The new poller now channels all TX
>>> callbacks through the task queue
>>> additionally to RX and commands. So
>>> setting the queue size to be larger than
>>> the CAN RX queue size seems appropriate.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, an overflow with more than
>>> 60 waiting messages still indicates some
>>> too long processing time in the vehicle
>>> task.
>>>
>>> TX callbacks previously were done
>>> directly in the CAN context, and no
>>> current vehicle overrides the empty
>>> default handler, so this imposed almost
>>> no additional overhead. By requiring a
>>> queue entry for each TX callback, this
>>> feature now has a potentially high
>>> impact for all vehicles. If passing
>>> these to the task is actually necessary,
>>> it needs to become an opt-in feature, so
>>> only vehicles subscribing to the
>>> callback actually need to cope with that
>>> additional load & potential processing
>>> delays involved.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal
>> Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OvmsDev mailing list
>> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
>> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OvmsDev mailing list
>> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
>> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>
> --
> Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal
> Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
>
> _______________________________________________
> OvmsDev mailing list
> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>
--
Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal
Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openvehicles.com/pipermail/ovmsdev/attachments/20240518/121df17e/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openvehicles.com/pipermail/ovmsdev/attachments/20240518/121df17e/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the OvmsDev
mailing list