Logic for checking for empty or preemptable tx mailbox condition seems incorrect

[ericyanush]

The condition here: https://github.com/stm32-rs/bxcan/blob/3fc7a0e81975d4f25e61e0da81cd9e7a5e969e81/src/lib.rs#L848 should return an Ok if the mailbox is empty or if it is not transmitted and has a lower priority, however the condition seems to return WouldBlock in the case that the message is still pending, but the Id is greater than or equal (same or lower priority).

Should this be reversed to be && id > IdReg::from_register(tir.bits()) so it only returns WouldBlock in the case that the requested id is higher (lower priority) than the existing pending frame?

[timokroeger]

Good catch! I agree that the id check should be reversed. There are some tests for TX id priority but it looks like this code path was not covered: https://github.com/stm32-rs/bxcan/blob/3fc7a0e81975d4f25e61e0da81cd9e7a5e969e81/testsuite/tests/integration.rs#L359

[ericyanush]

Ok, thanks for confirming! I'll draft up a PR to get this fixed, and add a test to ensure that code path is covered, unless you're already looking at it.

[ericyanush]

Ok, looking through the transmit implementation as a whole, there are a few other things I noticed that look like issues:

1. The logic relies on checking the ID currently stored in a mailbox's TX id reg without checking the corresponding TSR reg Mailbox empty bit. Based on the Reference manuals for the L4 and F1 lines (I'm going to assume if they are the same, all SKUs with the bxCAN peripheral will be the same) we can't rely on those values. The reset values of the TIxR registers are undefined, other than the transmit request bit. Also, based on my testing with an L432KC, after a mailbox is transmitted and its corresponding TME flag is set, the values in the TIxR register, other than the transit request bit, aren't being cleared.
2. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but in the current logic, it appears that if any frame is pending in a tx mailbox, and you attempt to enqueue a frame that has a lower priority than any pending frame, even if there are free tx mailboxes, the transmit request will fail with a WouldBlock error. From the documentation I've seen, I would expect that as long as there is a free mailbox any frame should be enqueued. Only if all mailboxes are full would the transmit request return a WouldBlock if all pending frames have a higher priority than the one that is being requested for transmission.

Before I go "fixing" what I think are issues, I'd like someone to confirm how this was intended to work.

[timokroeger]

Your concerns regarding the current implementation are valid, another pair of eyes is always welcome. As a reference: the current implementation takes inspiration from https://github.com/OpenCyphal-Garage/platform_specific_components/tree/master/stm32/libcanard/bxcan. I have not looked into the code again but it would be interesting to understand if e.g. the linked code or the zephyr driver have the same shortcomings. The behavior you describe in the second point is intentional to prevent inner priority inversion. Section 4.2.4.3 of the Cyphal Spec describes the issue well.

[ericyanush]

Thanks for the reply. I did some reading on the subject from the Cyphal document you linked, a conversation on the matter in a Zephyr issue and the PR to fix the priority inversion issue in Zephyr, and a couple of different papers, including the implementation of CANOpen in VHDL by the European Space Agency.

For the sake of the rest of this discussion, I'm going to reference information on the bxCAN peripheral specifically, by page number within the STM32L432KC reference manual rev4, although all SKUs that use the same version of the bxCAN peripheral should be the same.

From what I've gathered this is not a simple situation to work around generically; it largely depends on bus load, application needs, and the implementation of the hardware peripheral. In cases where the CAN peripheral does not implement priority based transmission, but has multiple TX slots (like the MCP2515 that uses assignable priorities to each slot instead of using the frame ID to determine priority) priority inversion avoidance from the perspective of a single node must be managed entirely by the application and driver code, however that isn't the case with ST's bxCAN peripheral. For the remainder of this discussion, I will be referring to only the bxCAN peripheral, it's documented behaviour and how it applies to the concept of priority inversion.

For the case of ST's bxCAN peripheral, in the default reset state where the TXFP bit is not set in the MCR (page 1497), the hardware will avoid priority inversion within it's own TX mailboxes by always transmitting in order of ID priority, as opposed to FIFO order when the TXFP is set (Behaviour described on pages 1482-1483). So, in the simplest case, as long as there is a mailbox available, and the peripheral is in ID priority mode (the default), queuing a frame of lower priority into an empty mailbox when there are higher priority frames already enqueued in other mailboxes is safe from priority inversion. In fact, I'd argue that the current implementation of TX queuing in this library is actually very detrimental to bus throughput and timing, as well as creates the possibility of priority inversion from a bus-wide perspective, instead of just from the perspective of a single node.

For example, if we have a bus with multiple nodes, In the case where node "A" (running an application using this driver) attempts to transmit two frames of IDs 0xA and 0xB, however both frames are constructed of asynchronously received data from other devices/buses on connected to the processor. In this case it is indeterminate which of the two frames will be prepared by the application first. In the case where the higher priority frame (0xA) is first, it will be placed into a TX mailbox and await transmission on the bus, however if that frame has not been transmitted yet, or worse, is in the process of being transmitted (as per the state chart on page 1483, there is no way to distinguish between a mailbox that is pending, scheduled [highest priority mailbox in the peripheral], or currently being transmitted) while the application attempts to enqueue the lower priority frame (0xB), this driver will reject the queueing of the message, forcing the application to holdback the message and attempt retransmission once the peripheral has signalled that it has successfully transmitted the higher priority frame (0xA), even if there are two empty TX mailboxes. The issue here is that by the time the application re-attempts queuing the frame, accounting for the latency of either the irq firing or the runloop reaching the task that triggered the send again, the driver rechecking the mailboxes and re-enqueuing the lower priority frame, it's likely that the three inter-frame spacing bits have elapsed on the bus and the lower priority frame will have missed a potential opportunity for transmission. In this scenario we may have also created a bus-wide priority inversion, as a lower priority frame, say ID 0xCC, from another node may have been transmitted in the frame slot, instead of the higher priority frame from the node which had it's frame rejected from queuing by this driver's code.

In the more complex scenario where the three TX mailboxes are already holding pending frames, let's say IDs 0xA, 0xB and 0xC, from previous application events, but due to bus loading are currently awaiting transmission, and the application attempts to schedule a fourth frame with Id 0x9. In this case, if the driver simply rejected the frame because the mailboxes were full, a priority inversion would be created, however, the bxCAN peripheral provides nice facilities for handling this too. In this case, to prevent priority inversion, the driver should use the CODE field from the CAN_TSR register (page 1498) to determine the lowest priority message currently enqueued (in this example ID 0xC), dequeue the message (read + abort) and replace it with the new higher priority frame (0x9), returning the dequeued frame to the application for appropriate handling. This scenario however, depicts the only opportunity I can think of for a priority inversion within the node. In a more generalized scenario, it would occur where the hardware selects and begins to arbitrate, or has already begun arbitration and/or transmission frame 0xA while the driver is attempting to dequeue frame 0xC and queue 0x9. From my perspective this outcome is both acceptable and not avoidable without creating a bottleneck within the node that has the potential to reduce bus and node throughput.

Due the the asynchronous nature of CAN, along with the uncertainty of execution timing of the application and bus loading, it's not possible to guarantee in the driver-space that when the TX mailboxes are full there is no chance of a request to queue a higher priority message from the application, so even in the current implementation where the driver refuses to queue a frame with a lower priority ID than any already in TX mailboxes, it's possible for the same situation to arise if the application queues frames with IDs 0xC, 0xB, 0xA, then 0x9. The only way I know of to avoid this would be to only use a single TX mailbox and maintain a software queue of messages, ordered by priority, loading the next frame into the TX mailbox after the hardware has indicated it has successfully transmitted the last loaded frame. However, this solution comes with a potential penalty on bus throughput, if the driver/application aren't able to load the next frame into the TX mailbox fast enough for it to be scheduled by the peripheral to be arbitrated in the next frame slot, which is likely, as the TX mailbox in use is immutable while the frame is being transmitted, and the irq for transmission doesn't fire until the frame has completed transmission and has been acknowledged on the bus, leaving the 3 inter-frame spacing bits for the new frame to be queued by the driver/application and prepared/scheduled by the peripheral, which at the modest bit rate of 250Kbps amounts to 12µs.

To summarize, my suggestions for adjusting the current implementation are as follows:

1. Leave the bxCAN peripheral in TX frame priority mode, and allow the hardware to handle priority inversion avoidance within the TX mailboxes. It may be worth purposefully setting that bit at driver initialization to ensure that it's in that state, in the event that control of the device is being handed off from a boot loader to the application.
2. Accept any frame into a TX mailbox, given at least one is empty
3. When all TX mailboxes are full, dequeue the lowest priority frame, based on the CODE value in the CAN_TSR register, returning the dequeued frame to the application (same as existing), to prevent priority inversion within the node.
4. Add a method to allow the user to override the ID priority TX behaviour, and enable FIFO behaviour, which depending on the application's requirements may be necessary (example: segmented transfers).
5. Improve the driver documentation to indicate what the behaviour is in each of these scenarios, and clarify that outside of the 3 TX mailboxes, it is the client application's responsibility for managing queuing and message priority to prevent an inversion, if the application requires queuing more frames than the 3 frames the peripheral can hold.

[timokroeger]

Thank you for going into depth and documenting everything so cleanly!

Summarizing I understand that the bxCAN peripheral can be used in two modes:

1. FIFO mode (TXFP = 1):
   • Order of all frames are preserved
   • Avoids the outer priority problem when the application keeps the mailboxes filled (frames can be sent back to back)
2. Priority mode (TXFP = 0):
   • Avoids the inner priority problem (HW selects the right mailbox)
   • Avoids the outer priority problem when the application keeps the mailboxes filled (frames can be sent back to back)
   • Always selects the mailbox with the lowest mailbox number when multiple frames with same priority are pending

I highlighted the last entry because I think it is the biggest shortcoming of the priority mode: Reordering can occur for messages with the same ID. Depending on the higher level protocol that might be OK or not. At least for the implementation of the embedded-can traits we must ensure FIFO ordering: https://github.com/rust-embedded/embedded-hal/blob/master/embedded-can/src/nb.rs#L20-L21

Nevertheless I think your proposal sounds good and it would simplify the implementation with the benefit that the user has more control by choosing the desired mode. Maybe we could even use FIFO mode for the embedded-can traits and accept the priority inversion? IIRC thats how linux drivers work, and those are used in real systems.

[ericyanush]

I really appreciate the time you're taking to talk this through with me!

I honestly hadn't consulted the embedded traits to see what its requirements are. Reading the non-blocking trait documentation, it seems to vaguely suggest that the driver should always be in priority mode, and only be applying FIFO ordering when there are messages with the same priority, although it isn't explicitly stated. I see in some of the original PRs to the embedded-hal project, you either authored them or were involved in some way. Can you clarify what the intent with the current trait API surface is in that crate?

I definitely like the idea of keeping it simple, and using FIFO for the embedded-can traits and enabling the choice between FIFO and priority based within the driver APIs. Although, now that I've had some time to digest this all, I have a couple of additional thoughts:

1. Maybe the embedded-can traits should be enhanced to allow the client code to better express what is and isn't acceptable for its specific application. Particularly, I'm think it would be useful for the transmit method to allow the client to indicate that it either allows re-ordering or requires FIFO for same priority frames, along with the ability to specify if the driver should replace an already queued frame with the same ID with the new one being supplied to the call.
2. A compromise for the embedded-can traits would be to still use the priority transmission mode, but in the event that a frame with an ID that is identical to one that is already queued in a TX mailbox is submitted the logic could be to only queue the new frame if a mailbox with a higher number than the one(s) that have frames with the same ID queued is free or has a lower priority frame, otherwise the driver would return WouldBlock. Here are some examples to help illustrate; if the application tries to queue a frame with ID 0x8:

MB	Queued ID
0	0x8
1	0x4
2	0x9

Result: Driver dequeues MB 2 and inserts new frame with ID 0x8

MB	Queued ID
0	0x9
1	0x8
2	0x4

Result: Driver returns WouldBlock, as no MB higher than 1 is free or is pre-temptable

MB	Queued ID
0	EMPTY
1	0x4
2	0x8

Result: Driver returns WouldBlock, as no MB higher than 2 is free or is pre-temptable

Thoughts?

[timokroeger]

Can you clarify what the intent with the current trait API surface is in that crate?

The idea was to minimize priority inversion while allowing users of the API to do segmented transfers. As we see from our discussion, those properties are kind of exclusive for the bxCAN peripheral (but its similar for other controllers really). While the requirements imposed by the embedded-can traits are unfortunate, we can still choose have different apis for bxCAN when used directly.

1. Maybe the embedded-can traits should be enhanced to allow the client code to better express what is and isn't acceptable for its specific application. Particularly, I'm think it would be useful for the transmit method to allow the client to indicate that it either allows re-ordering or requires FIFO for same priority frames, along with the ability to specify if the driver should replace an already queued frame with the same ID with the new one being supplied to the call.

Could you open a issue on the embedded-hal repo for this to check if there is interest for it? Looking at the reverse deps of embedded-can I get the feeling its not used widely (yet?) to implement CAN protocols (maybe because its too general? crates like canadesis have their own abstraction layer).

2. A compromise for the embedded-can traits would be to still use the priority transmission mode, but in the event that a frame with an ID that is identical to one that is already queued in a TX mailbox is submitted the logic could be to only queue the new frame if a mailbox with a higher number than the one(s) that have frames with the same ID queued is free or has a lower priority frame, otherwise the driver would return WouldBlock.

To me that looks like a good solution as compromise for the (current definition of) embedded-can traits.

As I type this response another idea came to me (probaly even more complex, I‘m not convinced its a good idea): Use FIFO mode, enqueue frames as long as the priority is the same or less. When a higer priority frame must be transmitted:

1. abort pending frame(s), the register contents should still be preserved
2. place new high priority frame into an empty spot
3. mark the previously aborted frames for retransmission Problem: We would need to keep track of insertion order to retransmit frames in chronological order

[ericyanush]

I've opened an issue on the embedded-hal repo to see if there is any appetite to adjust the traits defined there.

I do feel like I should clarify one point on the compromise I listed in my last comment, as it may not immediately be clear; the reasoning for only queuing frames while in FIFO mode with the same priority as an already queued frame iff there is a free/preempt-able mailbox with a higher number is we have no way of telling if the hardware is already trying to transmit the previous frame with the same ID. Even in the case where the frame we are concerned with isn't the lowest priority frame queued, it may have been when the peripheral was selecting the next frame to arbitrate.

Use FIFO mode, enqueue frames as long as the priority is the same or less.

I can see where this could be the right solution in some applications. However, I suspect the right solution is to have adjustments made to the embedded-can trait such that there can be a distinction between FIFO and ID priority modes. Otherwise it appears there will always be a compromise on bus throughput and/or usability when implementing these traits, and across different hardware peripherals the trade-offs needed to implement the behaviour described are certainly not the same.

[fhars]

Another thing that might be worth looking into is the blocking abort_by_index call the current logic uses. If I understand the manual correctly, that can take as long as the transmit time of a packet (so 12 milliseconds when using the slowest standard CANopen speed). This might be triggered (with the suggested initial change) by enqueuing four packets in short succession right after the tranmission of the first, lowest priority one starts.

Also, the current API is really weird. With it, the current function may end up holding a copy of a packet some unrelated part of the system has enqueued and then having to decide what to do with it. Sometimes it would be better to be able to only transmit if there is currently space in an output mailbox.