[Ovmsdev] OVMS Poller module/singleton
Michael Balzer
dexter at expeedo.de
Sun May 26 14:42:47 HKT 2024
The notification works on my devices, it only has a garbled per mille
character -- see attached screenshot. The same applies to the mail version:
> Poller timing is: on
> Type | count | Utlztn | Time
> | per s | [‰] | [ms]
> ---------------+--------+--------+---------
> Poll:PRI Avg| 0.25| 0.119| 0.382
> Peak| | 0.513| 0.678
> ---------------+--------+--------+---------
> RxCan1[597] Avg| 0.01| 0.004| 0.021
> Peak| | 0.000| 0.338
> ---------------+--------+--------+---------
> RxCan1[59b] Avg| 0.01| 0.011| 0.053
> Peak| | 0.000| 0.848
> ---------------+--------+--------+---------
> Cmd:State Avg| 0.01| 0.002| 0.012
> Peak| | 0.000| 0.120
> ===============+========+========+=========
> Total Avg| 0.28| 0.135| 0.468
The encoding is a general issue. The character encoding for text
messages via V2/MP is quite old & clumsy, it's got an issue with the
degree celcius character as well. We previously tried to keep all text
messages within the SMS safe character set (which e.g. lead to writing
just "C" instead of "°C"). I'd say we should head towards UTF-8 now. If
we ever refit SMS support, we can recode on the fly.
Regarding not seeing the notification on your phone:
a) Check your notification subtype/channel filters on the module. See
https://docs.openvehicles.com/en/latest/userguide/notifications.html#suppress-notifications
b) Check your notification vehicle filters on the phone (menu on
notification tab): if you enabled the vehicle filter, it will add the
messages of not currently selected vehicles to the list only, but not
raise a system notification. (Applies to the Android App, no idea about
the iOS version)
Regards,
Michael
Am 26.05.24 um 06:32 schrieb Michael Geddes:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to finalise this now .. and one last thing is that I don't
> get the report coming to my mobile. I'm using the command:
> MyNotify.NotifyString("info", "poller.report", buf.c_str());
>
> Where the buffer string is just the same as the report output. Should
> I be using some other format or command?
> I get "alert" types (like the ioniq5 door-open alert) fine to my mobile.
>
> Michael.
>
> On Sun, 19 May 2024, 12:51 Michael Balzer via OvmsDev,
> <ovmsdev at lists.openvehicles.com> wrote:
>
> A builtin web UI for this seems a bit over the top. Builtin web
> config pages should focus on user features, this is clearly a
> feature only needed during/for the development/extension of a
> vehicle adapter. Development features in the web UI are confusing
> for end users.
>
> If persistent enabling/disabling is done by a simple config
> command (e.g. "config set can poller.trace on"), that's also
> doable by users.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
>
> Am 19.05.24 um 02:06 schrieb Michael Geddes:
>> I was so focused on how I calculated the value that I totally
>> missed that ‰ would be a better description. I could also use
>> the system 'Ratio' unit... so % or ‰.
>>
>> I'll make space to put 'Avg' on the row. Was trying to limit the
>> width for output on a mobile. I agree it would make it easier to
>> understand.
>> Totals also makes sense.
>>
>> Should I make this a configuration that can be set on the
>> web-page? I'd probably use a configuration change notification
>> so that the very bit setting is sync'd with the 'configuration'
>> value.
>>
>> //.ichael
>>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2024, 14:05 Michael Balzer, <dexter at expeedo.de> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>
> --
> 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/20240526/6f45ad4f/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screenshot_2024-05-26-08-22-11-405.png
Type: image/png
Size: 236523 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openvehicles.com/pipermail/ovmsdev/attachments/20240526/6f45ad4f/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- 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/20240526/6f45ad4f/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the OvmsDev
mailing list