I'm developing a USB device driver for a microcontroller (Atmel/Microchip SAMD21, but I think the question is a general one). I need multiple endpoints for control & data, and the USB hardware uses per-endpoint descriptors to (among other things) locate buffers for input and output data.
Since IN data is polled at the host's discretion it makes sense that each endpoint has its own IN buffer, so that any endpoint's data (if it has any to send) is immediately available when polled.
But as far as incoming data from SETUP & OUT transactions is concerned, it occurs to me that I can save memory by configuring all endpoints to use a shared buffer. It seems wasteful for each endpoint to have its own buffer when, given the nature of USB transactions, only one such transaction can occur at a time.
Obviously this approach requires that transaction interrupts are handled sufficiently quickly that the shared buffer is freed and prepared for a new transaction in time for whatever the next transaction might be - but this is already a requirement for the control endpoint, where some SETUP transactions are immediately followed by an OUT.
So, assuming the timing is feasible, is there any other reason why such an approach wouldn't work?
Probably not.
Normally, the USB module on a microcontroller handles OUT packets by keeping track of which packet buffers it has written data to, and it waits for your firmware to say it is done processing the buffer before accepting more data from the computer and overwriting the buffer. If an endpoint has no buffers available to receive more data, but the computer sends an OUT packet to the endpoint, the USB module typically responds to the computer with a NAK packet, which tells the computer it should retry later. In this situation, your firmware can take pretty much as long as it wants to handle the OUT packets.
By having multiple endpoints configured to use the same buffer, you mess up this system. When you receive an OUT packet on any of your endpoints, the USB module would (probably) not know that multiple endpoints use the same buffer, so it would not issue NAK packets on your other OUT endpoints. If it receives another OUT packet right away, it would write it to the same buffer, overwriting the previous packet. Therefore, whenever you receive a packet, your code would have to rush as fast as it can to do something like copying the data out of that buffer, disabling other OUT endpoints, or reassigning buffers.
Even if you can actually get this to work, it means that your scheme to save a little bit of memory turns the servicing of USB events into a real-time task (i.e. a task that requires responses from your code in a few microseconds). If you want to add another real-time task to your system later, it will be very difficult, because you always have to be ready to be interrupted by your USB-handling code.
The SAMD21 has tons of memory (32 KB) so you probably don't need to worry about optimizing this part of it.
I agree with David's Response. You didn't mention the speed of the device you are creating. A low-speed would need just a few 8-byte buffers. A full-speed, a few 64-byte buffers. High-speed, maybe eight 64-byte buffers, depending on your use. A super-speed device, your still only talking a few 512-byte buffers.
I would create a ring buffer for each endpoint. This way you are not moving data around. You are simply using a pointer that points to an entry within a memory ring. A full-speed device with a control endpoint, an interrupt endpoint, and two bulk endpoints, each endpoint having sixteen 64-byte entries per ring, is still only a total of 4k RAM, 1/8th of the total RAM.
However, I am not familiar with the SAMD21, so please check the specification to be sure this will work.
Related
I have been trying to use WebRTC Data Channel for a game, however, I am unable to consistently send live player data without hitting the queue size limit (8KB) after 50-70 secs of playing.
Sine the data is required to be real-time, I have no use for data that comes out of order. I have initialized the data channel with the following attributes:
negotiated: true,
id: id,
ordered: true,
maxRetransmits: 0,
maxPacketLifetime: 66
The MDN Docs said that the buffer cannot be altered in any way.
Is there anyway I can consistently send data without exceeding the buffer space? I don't mind purging the buffer space as it only contains data that has been clogged up over time.
NOTE: The data is transmitting until the buffer size exceeds the 8KB space.
EDIT: I forgot to add that this issue is only occurring when the two sides are on different networks. When both are within the same LAN, there is no buffering (since higher bandwidth, I presume). I tried to add multiple Data Channels (8 in parallel). However, this only increased the time before the failure occurred again. All 8 buffers were full. I also tried creating a new channel each time the buffer was close to being full and switched to the new DC while closing the previous one that was full, but I found out the hard way (reading Note in MDN Docs) that the buffer space is not released immediately, rather tries to transmit all data in the buffer taking away precious bandwidth.
Thanks in advance.
The maxRetransmits value is ignored if the maxPacketLifetime value is set; thus, you've configured your channel to resend packets for up to 66ms. For your application, it is probably better to use a pure unreliable channel by setting maxPacketLifetime to 0.
As Sean said, there is no way to flush the queue. What you can do is to drop packets before sending them if the channel is congested:
if(dc.bufferedAmount > 0)
return;
dc.send(data);
Finally, you should realise that buffering may happen in the network as well as at the sender: any router can buffer packets when it is congested, and many routers have very large buffers (this is called BufferBloat). The WebRTC stack should prevent you from buffering too much data in the network, but if WebRTC's behaviour is not aggressive enough for your needs, you will need to add explicit feedback from the sender to the receiver in order to avoid having too many packets in flight.
I don't believe you can flush the outbound buffer, you will probably need to watch the bufferedAmount and adjust what you are sending if it grows.
Maybe handle the retransmissions yourselves and discard old data if needed? WebRTC doesn't surface the SACKs from SCTP. So I think you will need to implement something yourself.
It's an interesting problem. Would love to hear the WebRTC W3C WorkGroup takes on it if exposing more info would make things easier for you.
So, what I have learned so far is that CPU programs the source address, dest address, word count and the direction to the DMA controller whenever it needs to transfer the data from say a harddrive. But in this example, the hard drive is just a dumb device, so it makes sense because harddrive can never initiate a data transfer.
But, what if we have connected the serial port where in certain instances we are going to get 8 bits of data. I know the DMA controller is used for large memory transfer, but say I want to do DMA for these 8 bits. But the device driver on the CPU cannot tell when the data is coming and it also can not tell how much data is coming because the serial port may send 8 bits or 16 bits or no data at all. So in this case who fills the DMA controller's count and memory addresses since the device driver is completely unknown when the data is going to come in.
Using DMA serial input is complicated when the incoming data is not a continuous stream or fixed length packets. The exact details will depend on the specific UART and DMA controller, but generally, each character that arrives will be copied to the next location in the provided DMA buffer, and an interrupt will be generated by the DMA controller when the buffer is both half-filled and completely filled.
A single byte DMA buffer serves little purpose over using the UART's data avalable interrupt, and will simply delay byte processing by one character period.
If your DMA buffer were two characters long, you'd then get an interrupt for every character (one for the half transfer, and one for the full transfer), which solves the problem of partially filled buffers not being serviced, but does not reduce the interrupt overhead at all so offers little advantage over direct UART interrupt handling. If your UART includes a FIFO buffer, that would be a better method of dealing with asynchronous serial input when only a small amount of buffering is required.
When a larger DMA buffer is used the interrupt rate is reduced, but when a buffer is incomplete you will not get an interrupt, and the data may wait indefinitely. One solution to that problem is to implement a timeout mechanism whereby if the DMA interrupt does not arrive within a time period determined by the baud rate and buffer length, then the timeout handler retrieves all data currently buffered. Such a mechanism requires care to avoid race conditions between the timeout and the DMA interrupt, and to ensure that data arriving while the timeout is being processed is not lost, or that data retrieved by the timeout is not repeated when the DMA interrupt eventually arrives.
I've been experimenting with isochronous USB transfers using WinUsb, and it turns out that WinUsb always sends data as fast as possible:
WinUsb_WriteIsochPipe packetizes the transfer buffer so that in each interval, the host can send the maximum bytes allowed per interval.
However for the kernel drivers you can apparently send shorter packets:
The MaximumPacketSize value indicates the maximum permitted size of the isochronous packet. The client driver can set the size of each isochronous packet to any value less than the MaximumPacketSize value.
I wondered how USB audio handles this. As far as I can see in the spec they just two alternative configurations for the interface - a zero bandwidth one, and a non-zero bandwidth one. There is a flag that says whether the endpoint requires full-size packets or not.
So my questions are:
a) What is the best way to handle sending less than full-speed data. Should I have a whole array of alternate configurations with different max packet sizes?
b) Should I expect to be able to send shorter-than-maximum packets? If so why doesn't WinUsb allow this?
Maybe you have to call WinUsb_WriteIsochPipe once for each packet you want to send. Make sure to use asynchronous I/O so you can queue up dozens or hundreds of requests ahead of time.
On Redhat Linux, I have a multicast listener listening to a very busy multicast data source. It runs perfectly by itself, no packet losses. However, once I start the second instance of the same application with the exactly same settings (same src/dst IP address, sock buffer size, user buffer size, etc.) I started to see very frequent packet losses from both instances. And they lost exact the same packets. If I stop the one of the instances, the remaining one returns to normal without any packet loss.
Initially, I though it is the CPU/kernel load issue, maybe it could not get the packets out of buffer quickly enough. So I did another test. I still keep one instance of the application running. But then started a totally different multicast listener on the same computer but use the second NIC card and listen to a different but even busier multicast source. Both applications run fine without any packet loss.
So it looks like one NIC card is not powerful enough to support two multicast applications, even though they listen to exact the same thing. The possible cause to the packet loss problem might be that, in this scenario, the NIC card driver needs to copy the incoming data to two sock buffers, and this extra copy task is too much for the ether card to handle so it drops packets. Any deeper analysis on this issue and any possible solutions?
Thanks
You are basically finding out that the kernel is inefficient at fan-out of multicast packets. Worst case scenario the code is for every incoming packet allocating two new buffers, the SKB object and packet payload, and copying the NIC buffer twice.
Pick the best case scenario, for every incoming packet a new SKB is allocated but the packet payload is shared between the two sockets with reference counting. Now imagine what happens when two applications, each on their own core and on separate sockets. Every reference to the packet payload is going to cause the memory bus to stall whilst both core caches have to flush and reload, and above that each application is having to kernel context switch back and forth to pass the socket payload. The result is terrible performance.
You aren't the first to encounter such a problem and many vendors have created solutions to it. The basic design is to limit the incoming data to one thread on one core on one socket, then have that thread distribute the data to all other interested threads, preferably using user space code building upon shared memory and lockless data structures.
Examples are TIBCO's Rendezvous and 29 West's Ultra Messaging showing a 660ns IPC bus:
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=194703
I am writing code for a USB device. Suppose the USB host starts a control read transfer to read some data from the device, and the amount of data requested (wLength in the Setup Packet) is a multiple of the Endpoint 0 max packet size. Then after the host has received all the data (in the form of several IN transactions with maximum-sized data packets), will it initiate another IN transaction to see if there is more data even though there can't be more?
Here's an example sequence of events that I am wondering about:
USB enumeration process: max packet size on endpoint 0 is reported to be 64.
SETUP-DATA-ACK transaction starts a control read transfer, wLength = 128.
IN-DATA-ACK transaction delivers first 64 bytes of data to host.
IN-DATA-ACK transaction delivers last 64 bytes of data to host.
IN-DATA-ACK with zero-length DATA packet? Does this transaction ever happen?
OUT-DATA-ACK transaction completes Status Phase of the transfer; transfer is over.
I tested this on my computer (Windows Vista, if it matters) and the answer was no: the host was smart enough to know that no more data can be received from the device, even though all the packets sent by the device were full (maximum size allowed on Endpoint 0). I'm wondering if there are any hosts that are not smart enough, and will try to perform another IN transaction and expect to receive a zero-length data packet.
I think I read the relevant parts of the USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 specifications from usb.org but I did not find this issue addressed. I would appreciate it if someone can point me to the right section in either of those documents.
I know that a zero-length packet can be necessary if the device chooses to send less data than the host requested in wLength.
I know that I could make my code flexible enough to handle either case, but I'm hoping I don't have to.
Thanks to anyone who can answer this question!
Read carefully USB specification:
The Data stage of a control transfer from an endpoint to the host is complete when the endpoint does one of
the following:
Has transferred exactly the amount of data specified during the Setup stage
Transfers a packet with a payload size less than wMaxPacketSize or transfers a zero-length packet
So, in your case, when wLength == transfer size, answer is NO, you don't need ZLP.
In case wLength > transfer size, and (transfer size % ep0 size) == 0 answer is YES, you need ZLP.
In general, USB uses a less-than-max-length packet to demarcate an end-of-transfer. So in the case of a transfer which is an integer multiple of max-packet-length, a ZLP is used for demarcation.
You see this in bulk pipes a lot. For example, if you have a 4096 byte transfer, that will be broken down into an integer number of max-length packets plus one zero-length-packet. If the SW driver has a big enough receive buffer set up, higher-level SW receives the entire transfer at once, when the ZLP occurs.
Control transfers are a special case because they have the wLength field, so ZLP isn't strictly necessary.
But I'd strongly suggest SW be flexible to both, as you may see variations with different USB host silicon or low-level HCD drivers.
I would like to expand on MBR's answer. The USB specification 2.0, in section 5.5.3, says:
The Data stage of a control transfer from an endpoint to the host is
complete when the endpoint does one of the following:
Has transferred exactly the amount of data specified during the Setup stage
Transfers a packet with a payload size less than wMaxPacketSize or transfers a zero-length packet
When a Data stage is complete, the Host Controller advances to the
Status stage instead of continuing on with another data transaction.
If the Host Controller does not advance to the Status stage when the
Data stage is complete, the endpoint halts the pipe as was outlined in
Section 5.3.2. If a larger-than-expected data payload is received from
the endpoint, the IRP for the control transfer will be
aborted/retired.
I added emphasis to one of the sentences in that quote because it seems to specifically say what the device should do: it should "halt" the pipe if the host tries to continue the data phase after it was done, and it is done if all the requested data has been transmitted (i.e. the number of bytes transferred is greater than or equal to wLength). I think halting refers to sending a STALL packet.
In other words, the device does not need a zero-length packet in this situation and in fact the USB specification says it should not provide one.
You don't have to. (*)
The whole point of wLength is to tell the host the maximum number of bytes it should attempt to read (but it might read less !)
(*) I have seen devices that crash when IN/OUT requests were made at incorrect time during control transfers (when debugging our host solution). So any host doing what you are worried about, would of killed those devices and is hopefully not in the market.