<div dir="ltr">Thankyou.<div>I was more worried that we might be waiting on each other.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't think I have quite the correct able to test on my friends Leaf properly, or does it use the standard cable?</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, let me know what I can do to.</div><div><br></div><div>//.ichael</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 at 14:46, Michael Balzer via OvmsDev <<a href="mailto:ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com">ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
Sorry, I know I'm behind with PRs.<br>
<br>
I'll try to find some time this weekend.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>Am 14.06.24 um 08:31 schrieb Michael
Geddes via OvmsDev:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Was this all good? I want to make sure I get to the bottom
of this whole issue asap! </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<a href="https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/pull/1018" target="_blank">https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/pull/1018</a>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Was there something else you needed me to work on to make
sure this all works for all supported cars?<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>//.ichael</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 26 May 2024 at 21:15,
Michael Balzer via OvmsDev <<a href="mailto:ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com" target="_blank">ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> OK, I see now why it wouldn't send the notification: the
V2 & V3 server register for notifications up to
COMMAND_RESULT_NORMAL = 1024 characters.<br>
<br>
The report quickly becomes larger than 1024 characters, so
the notifications no longer get sent via the server
connectors.<br>
<br>
You need to either reduce the size, split the report, or use
data notifications instead.<br>
<br>
On the reset value init: for my float targeting smoothing
helper class for the UpMiiGo, I implemented a gradual ramp
up from 1 to the requested sample size. You can do something
similar also with powers of 2. IOW, yes, initialization from
the first values received is perfectly OK.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>Am 26.05.24 um 14:35 schrieb Michael Geddes:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">It _<i>should</i>_
already be sending a report on charge stop.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">MyEvents.RegisterEvent(TAG,
"vehicle.charge.stop",
std::bind(&OvmsPollers::VehicleChargeStop,
this, _1, _2));</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">Reset
on charge start/vehicle on is a good idea.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">A
question – would it be silly if the first value
after a reset, rather than using 0 average to
start with, if the average got set to the initial
value? I’m in 2 minds about it. It would make the
average more useful quicker.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">//.ichael</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, 26 May 2024, 19:39
Michael Balzer via OvmsDev, <<a href="mailto:ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com" target="_blank">ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">As the averages
quickly decline when idle, an automatic
report should probably also be sent on
charge stop.<br>
<br>
Also, I think you should automatically reset
the timer statistics on drive & charge
start.<br>
<br>
First stats from charging my UpMiiGo:<br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:"Courier New"">Type | count |
Utlztn | Time <br>
| per s | [‰] | [ms]<br>
---------------+--------+--------+---------<br>
Poll:PRI Avg| 1.00| 0.723|
0.716<br>
Peak| | 1.282|
3.822<br>
---------------+--------+--------+---------<br>
Poll:SRX Avg| 7.72| 1.246|
0.184<br>
Peak| | 3.128|
1.058<br>
---------------+--------+--------+---------<br>
RxCan1[7ae] Avg| 2.48| 0.915|
0.362<br>
Peak| | 1.217|
1.661<br>
---------------+--------+--------+---------<br>
RxCan1[7cf] Avg| 4.76| 1.928|
0.397<br>
Peak| | 2.317|
2.687<br>
---------------+--------+--------+---------<br>
RxCan1[7ed] Avg| 3.38| 1.251|
0.327<br>
Peak| | 8.154|
12.273<br>
---------------+--------+--------+---------<br>
RxCan1[7ee] Avg| 0.21| 0.066|
0.297<br>
Peak| | 0.225|
1.690<br>
---------------+--------+--------+---------<br>
TxCan1[744] Avg| 1.49| 0.022|
0.011<br>
Peak| | 0.032|
0.095<br>
---------------+--------+--------+---------<br>
TxCan1[765] Avg| 3.89| 0.134|
0.027<br>
Peak| | 0.155|
0.113<br>
---------------+--------+--------+---------<br>
TxCan1[7e5] Avg| 2.32| 0.038|
0.013<br>
Peak| | 0.295|
0.084<br>
---------------+--------+--------+---------<br>
TxCan1[7e6] Avg| 1 0.21| 0.002|
0.008<br>
Peak| | 0.010|
0.041<br>
---------------+--------+--------+---------<br>
Cmd:State Avg| 0.00| 0.000|
0.007<br>
Peak| | 0.005|
0.072<br>
===============+========+========+=========<br>
Total Avg| 27.46| 6.324|
2.349<br>
</span><br>
<br>
Overall healthy I'd say, but let's see how
it compares.<br>
<br>
7ed is the BMS, the peak time is probably
related to the extended cell data logging --
I've enabled log intervals for both cell
voltages & temperatures.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 26.05.24 um 08:42
schrieb Michael Balzer via OvmsDev:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">The notification works
on my devices, it only has a garbled per
mille character -- see attached
screenshot. The same applies to the mail
version:<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<pre>Poller timing is: on</pre>
<pre>Type | count | Utlztn | Time </pre>
<pre> | per s | [‰] | [ms]</pre>
<pre>---------------+--------+--------+---------</pre>
<pre>Poll:PRI Avg| 0.25| 0.119| 0.382</pre>
<pre> Peak| | 0.513| 0.678</pre>
<pre>---------------+--------+--------+---------</pre>
<pre>RxCan1[597] Avg| 0.01| 0.004| 0.021</pre>
<pre> Peak| | 0.000| 0.338</pre>
<pre>---------------+--------+--------+---------</pre>
<pre>RxCan1[59b] Avg| 0.01| 0.011| 0.053</pre>
<pre> Peak| | 0.000| 0.848</pre>
<pre>---------------+--------+--------+---------</pre>
<pre>Cmd:State Avg| 0.01| 0.002| 0.012</pre>
<pre> Peak| | 0.000| 0.120</pre>
<pre>===============+========+========+=========</pre>
<pre> Total Avg| 0.28| 0.135| 0.468</pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
Regarding not seeing the notification on
your phone:<br>
<br>
a) Check your notification subtype/channel
filters on the module. See <a href="https://docs.openvehicles.com/en/latest/userguide/notifications.html#suppress-notifications" target="_blank">https://docs.openvehicles.com/en/latest/userguide/notifications.html#suppress-notifications</a><br>
<br>
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)<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 26.05.24 um 06:32
schrieb Michael Geddes:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-family:"Courier New"">
MyNotify.NotifyString("info",
"poller.report", buf.c_str());</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Where the
buffer string is just the same as
the report output. Should I be
using some other format or
command?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I get "alert"
types (like the ioniq5 door-open
alert) fine to my mobile.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Michael.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, 19 May
2024, 12:51 Michael Balzer via
OvmsDev, <<a href="mailto:ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com" target="_blank">ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 19.05.24
um 02:06 schrieb Michael Geddes:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 ‰. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Totals
also makes sense.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">//.ichael</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
Sat, 18 May 2024,
14:05 Michael Balzer,
<<a href="mailto:dexter@expeedo.de" target="_blank">dexter@expeedo.de</a>> wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm not sure whether the 'max' should be the maximum
of the smoothed
value.. or the
maximum of the
raw value.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
The naming in the
table is a bit
confusing I think.
(besides: I've never
seen "ave" as the
abbreviation for
average)<br>
<br>
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]".<br>
<br>
The totals for all
averages in the
table foot would
also be nice.<br>
<br>
Maybe "Ave" (or
avg?) also should be
placed on the left,
as the "peak" label
now suggests being
the peak of the
average.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am
18.05.24 um 02:28
schrieb Michael
Geddes:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">You did say max/pead value. I also halved the N for
both.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm not sure whether the 'max' should be the maximum
of the
smoothed
value.. or the
maximum of the
raw value.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is currently the raw-value maximum. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The problem is that the middle column is the maximum
of the {{sum
over 10s} /
(10*1000,000)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I could easily change the 'period' to 1s and see how
that goes..
was just
trying to
reduce the
larger
calculations. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New"">Usage:
poller
[pause|resume|status|times|trace]</span>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New""><br>
OVMS# poller
time status<br>
Poller timing
is: on<br>
Type |
Count | Ave
time | Ave
length<br>
|
per s | ms
per s | ms <br>
-------------+----------+-----------+-----------<br>
Poll:PRI |
1.00|
0.559|
0.543<br>
peak |
|
0.663|
1.528<br>
-------------+----------+-----------+-----------<br>
Poll:SRX |
0.08|
0.009|
0.038<br>
peak |
|
0.068|
0.146<br>
-------------+----------+-----------+-----------<br>
CAN1 RX[778] |
0.11|
0.061|
0.280<br>
peak |
|
0.458|
1.046<br>
-------------+----------+-----------+-----------<br>
CAN1 RX[7a8] |
0.04|
0.024|
0.124<br>
peak |
|
0.160|
0.615<br>
-------------+----------+-----------+-----------<br>
CAN1 TX[770] |
0.05|
0.004|
0.016<br>
peak |
|
0.022|
0.102<br>
-------------+----------+-----------+-----------<br>
CAN1 TX[7a0] |
0.02|
0.002|
0.011<br>
peak |
|
0.010|
0.098<br>
-------------+----------+-----------+-----------<br>
CAN1 TX[7b3] |
0.01|
0.001|
0.006<br>
peak |
|
0.000|
0.099<br>
-------------+----------+-----------+-----------<br>
CAN1 TX[7e2] |
0.02|
0.002|
0.011<br>
peak |
|
0.010|
0.099<br>
-------------+----------+-----------+-----------<br>
CAN1 TX[7e4] |
0.08|
0.008|
0.048<br>
peak |
|
0.049|
0.107<br>
-------------+----------+-----------+-----------<br>
Cmd:State |
0.00|
0.000|
0.005<br>
peak |
|
0.000|
0.094</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 15:26, Michael Geddes <<a href="mailto:frog@bunyip.wheelycreek.net" target="_blank">frog@bunyip.wheelycreek.net</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is what I have now.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The one on the end is the one MIchael B was after
using an N of
32. (up for
discussion).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Every received poll does a 64bit difference to 32bit
(for the
elapsed time)
and 64bit
comparison
(for
end-of-period).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It also does 1x 32bit smoothing and 2x 32bit adds.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is from the Ioniq 5 so not any big values yet.
You can
certainly see
how
insignificant
the TX
callbacks are.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'll leave it on for when the car is moving and gets
some faster
polling.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New"">OVMS#
poll time
status<br>
Poller timing
is: on<br>
Type |
Count | Ave
time | Ave
Length<br>
|
per s | ms
per s | ms <br>
-------------+----------+-----------+-----------<br>
Poll:PRI |
1.00|
0.540|
0.539<br>
Poll:SRX |
0.03|
0.004|
0.017<br>
CAN1 RX[778] |
0.06|
0.042|
0.175<br>
CAN1 TX[770] |
0.04|
0.002|
0.008<br>
Cmd:State |
0.01|
0.001|
0.005</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New"">----------------------8<--------------------------------</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New"">Nice
smoothing
class (forces
N as a power
of 2):</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> constexpr unsigned floorlog2(unsigned x)<br>
{<br>
return x
== 1 ? 0 :
1+floorlog2(x
>> 1);<br>
}<br>
/* Maintain
a smoothed
average using
shifts for
division.<br>
* T should
be an integer
type<br>
* N needs
to be a power
of 2<br>
*/<br>
template
<typename
T, unsigned
N><br>
class
average_util_t<br>
{<br>
private:<br>
T m_ave;<br>
public:<br>
average_util_t()
: m_ave(0) {}<br>
static
const uint8_t
_BITS =
floorlog2(N);<br>
void
add( T val)<br>
{<br>
static_assert(N
== (1 <<
_BITS), "N
must be a
power of 2");<br>
m_ave
= (((N-1) *
m_ave) + val)
>>
_BITS;<br>
}<br>
T get()
{ return
m_ave; }<br>
operator
T() { return
m_ave; }<br>
};</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 10:29, Michael Geddes <<a href="mailto:frog@bunyip.wheelycreek.net" target="_blank">frog@bunyip.wheelycreek.net</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks Michael,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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). </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In addition</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* I currently have this being able to be turned on and
off and reset
manually (only
do it when
required).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* For the lower volume commands, the smoothed average
is not going
to be useful -
the count is
more
interesting
for different
reasons.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* 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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* 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?)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* I'm also happy to keep a rolling (32bit) average
time.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Even if you assume averages in the 100ms, 32bit is
going to
happily
support an N
of 64 or even
128.</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">How about we have (per record type):</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * total count (since last reset?) (32 bit)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * smoothed average of time per instance (32 bit)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * ?xx? total accumulated time since last reset
(64bit) ??
<-- with
the below
stats this is
much less
useful</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * last-measured-time (64 bit) </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * accumulated count since last time-period (16bit -
but maybe
32bit anyway
for byte
alignment?)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * smoothed average of count per time-period (32bit)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * accumulated time since last time-period (32bit)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * smoothed average of time per time-period (32bit)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It's possible to keep the </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thoughts?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">//.ichael</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 03:09, Michael Balzer via
OvmsDev <<a href="mailto:ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com" target="_blank">ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">esp_timer_get_time() is the
right choice
for precision
timing.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
runavg =
((N-1) *
runavg +
newval) / N<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 15.05.24 um 06:51 schrieb Michael Geddes via
OvmsDev:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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). </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This uses the call esp_timer_get_time() got get a
64bit <b>microseconds</b>
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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The cumulative time is stored as uint64_t which will
be plenty, as
32bit wouldn't
be nearly
enough.</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New"">OVMS#
<b>poller time
on</b><br>
Poller timing
is now on</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-family:"Courier New"">OVMS# <b>poller time status</b><br>
Poller timing
is: on<br>
Poll [PRI]
:
n=390 tot=0.2s
ave=0.586ms<br>
Poll [SRX]
:
n=316 tot=0.1s
ave=0.196ms<br>
CAN1 RX[0778]
:
n=382 tot=0.2s
ave=0.615ms<br>
CAN1 RX[07a8]
:
n=48 tot=0.0s
ave=0.510ms<br>
CAN1 RX[07bb]
:
n=162 tot=0.1s
ave=0.519ms<br>
CAN1 RX[07ce]
:
n=33 tot=0.0s
ave=0.469ms<br>
CAN1 RX[07ea]
:
n=408 tot=0.2s
ave=0.467ms<br>
CAN1 RX[07ec]
:
n=486 tot=0.2s
ave=0.477ms<br>
CAN3 RX[07df]
:
n=769 tot=0.2s
ave=0.261ms<br>
CAN1 TX[0770]
:
n=191 tot=0.0s
ave=0.054ms<br>
CAN1 TX[07a0]
:
n=16 tot=0.0s
ave=0.047ms<br>
CAN1 TX[07b3]
:
n=31 tot=0.0s
ave=0.069ms<br>
CAN1 TX[07c6]
:
n=11 tot=0.0s
ave=0.044ms<br>
CAN1 TX[07e2]
:
n=82 tot=0.0s
ave=0.067ms<br>
CAN1 TX[07e4]
:
n=54 tot=0.0s
ave=0.044ms<br>
Set State
:
n=7 tot=0.0s
ave=0.104ms</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">//.ichael</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, 12 May 2024 at 22:58, Michael Geddes <<a href="mailto:frog@bunyip.wheelycreek.net" target="_blank">frog@bunyip.wheelycreek.net</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Average time is probably a good stat - and certainly
what we care
about.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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). </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">//.ichael</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, 12 May 2024 at 22:29, Michael Balzer via
OvmsDev <<a href="mailto:ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com" target="_blank">ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Btw, to help
in narrowing
down the
actual problem
case, the
profiler could
collect max
times per RX
message ID.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 12.05.24 um 10:41 schrieb Michael Geddes:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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? </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a rough idea (in ms) I have.. based on nothing
much really,
so any ideas
would be
appreciated:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> int TardyMaxTime_ms(OvmsPoller::OvmsPollEntryType
entry_type)<br>
{<br>
switch
(entry_type)<br>
{<br>
case
OvmsPoller::OvmsPollEntryType::Poll:
return 80;<br>
case
OvmsPoller::OvmsPollEntryType::FrameRx:
return 30;<br>
case
OvmsPoller::OvmsPollEntryType::FrameTx:
return 20;<br>
case
OvmsPoller::OvmsPollEntryType::Command:
return 10;<br>
case
OvmsPoller::OvmsPollEntryType::PollState:
return 15;<br>
default:
return 80;<br>
}<br>
}</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">//.ichael</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 07:45, Michael Geddes <<a href="mailto:frog@bunyip.wheelycreek.net" target="_blank">frog@bunyip.wheelycreek.net</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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!!</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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!.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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!</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sooo.. I'm still wondering what is going on. Some
things I'm
going to try:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* 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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> - Add 'current queue length' to the poller status
information to
see if this is
indeed the
case? </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> - Add some kind of alert when the queue reaches a %
full?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Once you start overflowing and getting overflow log
messages, I
wonder if this
is then
contributing
to the
problem.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> - Push the overflow logging into Poller Task which
can look at
how many drops
occurred since
last received
item.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Split up the flags for the poller messages into 2:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> - Messages that are/could be happening in the TX/RX
tasks</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> - Other noisy messages that always happen in the
poller task.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thoughts on what else we might measure to figure out
what is going
on?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">//.ichael</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, 5 May 2024, 19:29 Michael Balzer via OvmsDev,
<<a href="mailto:ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com" target="_blank">ovmsdev@lists.openvehicles.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Michael,<br>
<br>
the queue size
isn't in
bytes, it's in
messages:<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Courier New""> *
@param
uxQueueLength
The maximum
number of
items that the
queue can
contain.<br>
*<br>
* @param
uxItemSize The
number of
bytes each
item in the
queue will
require.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
Queue sizes
are currently:<br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:"Courier New"">CONFIG_OVMS_HW_CAN_RX_QUEUE_SIZE=60<br>
CONFIG_OVMS_VEHICLE_CAN_RX_QUEUE_SIZE=60</span><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Nevertheless,
an overflow
with more than
60 waiting
messages still
indicates some
too long
processing
time in the
vehicle task.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal
Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
OvmsDev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OvmsDev@lists.openvehicles.com" target="_blank">OvmsDev@lists.openvehicles.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
OvmsDev mailing list
<a href="mailto:OvmsDev@lists.openvehicles.com" target="_blank">OvmsDev@lists.openvehicles.com</a>
<a href="http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev" target="_blank">http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal
Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
OvmsDev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OvmsDev@lists.openvehicles.com" target="_blank">OvmsDev@lists.openvehicles.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>