LCDProc 0.5.4-dev
-
Yes. Running interface traffic with WAN selected as the only screen has eliminated the 100% CPU problem (after 15hours testing at 1sec refresh).
I also tried running LCDd with different nice levels
Maybe another test: run the normal lcdproc client provided by the project. FWIW, I run lcdproc on 2 hosts (a NAS and the router itself), and LCDd on the router itself, and it seems to run just fine for weeks. lcdproc has a bunch of screens with scrolling, vbars, hbars, icons, big nums… This is Linux, but the same code. This could help isolate more info about the problem.
If you need it: https://github.com/downloads/fmertz/sdeclcd/lcdproc
For nice, the driver code sets the process priority to "realtime round robin" as part of the initialization for the portable "wait" routines. Maybe this is the "r" you are seeing. The call to set the priority was removed in the driver I posted earlier.
-
Folks,
I would like to kick off the effort to bring the LED support into the driver again. We have some support already, but only for the box I own (the X-Core-e). I was hoping folks with the other models could run a command to help me identify the EXACT ICH we need to code for. Best I can figure, this command is already in pfSense and should be run as root:
pciconf -r pci0:31:0 0:256This command reads the PCI configuration area (256 bytes) for the Low Pin count (LPC) device. The LPC device does GPIO, and can control the LEDs. Based on the exact device id, I can look up the spec, and find out the offset for GPIO base register, etc.
I would like the output of the command, for the X-Core and X-Peak models. The key is the first 8 digits, the last 4 being 8086, Intel's vendor ID. Thanks.
-
X-Peak:
[2.0.1-RELEASE][root@pfsense.fire.box]/root(7): pciconf -r pci0:31:0 0:256 25a18086 0280000f 06010002 00800000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000401 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000481 00000010 050a0c0b 000000d0 09808080 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 000054d5 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000220 00000000 0000000d 00000300 00000000 00000000 05415555 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00002186 00000f02 00000004 00000000 c0000000 34040000 00112233 45670291 00e40000 00000000 00020f66 00010000 ffffffffI'll have to try your driver without priority setting and see what happens.
Steve
Edit: You were correct. The driver with priority removed can be set to nice 20. I am testing now with several scrolling screens to see if I can still access the box.
-
Hello everybody,
I am making some tests to improve the stability of the package from the "client side". Until now from what I read all the tries have been made on the binary package and the driver, I think that maybe also a little help from the client can solve some problems.I am testing this changes on my boxes and I find no problems, so I would like to share this changes with you.
The changes are:
-
Added a 20ms delay between each command sent from the client to LCDproc.
-
Better managed errors. Now the client resets the error counter every successful communication session with LCDproc (before was a global counter). The error counter is managed inside the client (lcdproc_client.php).
-
Because of the above change, now the "client script" (lcdclient.sh) do not cycle anymore.
I hope at least some of the problems will be solved… I wait for your feedback. The new version is XXX.0.9.1.
Thanks,
Michele -
-
… and we are with 0.9.2.
I didn't realize that there were some clients pending, that with the new error counter management could work behind. So now all the lcdproc_client.php processes are killed during the package resync.
Sorry for the people that was already upgrading do 0.9.1...
-
Looks good. :)
Now the error counter is in the php script (much better) why bother having lcdclient.sh at all?
Just call the php client from the rc file directly.Also I have been running fmertz's driver he removed real time priority from with Nice level 20. Doing this allows the box to remain responsive even when some error event occours. Since the LCD is really of no importance compared to the firewall functions it seems better to run it at minimum priority. E.g.
$start .= "\t/usr/bin/nice -20 /usr/local/sbin/LCDd -c ". LCDPROC_CONFIG ."\n"; $start .= "\t/usr/bin/nice -20 ". LCDPROC_CLIENT ." &\n";Steve
-
Looks good. :)
Thanks!
Now the error counter is in the php script (much better) why bother having lcdclient.sh at all?
Just call the php client from the rc file directly.makes sense…
Also I have been running fmertz's driver he removed real time priority from with Nice level 20. Doing this allows the box to remain responsive even when some error event occours. Since the LCD is really of no importance compared to the firewall functions it seems better to run it at minimum priority. E.g.
$start .= "\t/usr/bin/nice -20 /usr/local/sbin/LCDd -c ". LCDPROC_CONFIG ."\n"; $start .= "\t/usr/bin/nice -20 ". LCDPROC_CLIENT ." &\n";also this makes sense. Just we have to consider if this influences negatively the client or LCDd to refresh the data or communicate with the panel, but it's just a matter of tuning…
-
Folks, the SDEC driver for Fireboxes is now officially part of the upstream lcdproc project! I received confirmation this morning that my code submission was committed. I guess it should come to pfSense as part of the package when the project leaders decide the current development branch is stable enough for release.
Now, on to support for the LEDs…
-
That's great! So the next version of LCDproc will have the SDEC driver… fmerz, consider that the compiling option in pfSense is "WITH_USB=true" only, I don't know if with this option the SDEC driver will be compiled...
BTW, how's going with the new package version? I found out it's more stable, but anyway still give some problems... what do you think?
Thanks,
Michele -
Excellent work! ;D
Steve
-
X-Peak:
[2.0.1-RELEASE][root@pfsense.fire.box]/root(7): pciconf -r pci0:31:0 0:256 25a18086Device ID 25a1 is a 6300ESB, data sheet: http://ark.intel.com/products/27663/Intel-6300ESB-IO-Controller
For the X-Peak, the LEDs are on GPIO pins 40 and 41. This is part of the second set of pins, so there no blink support in hardware. We already knew this…
Anyone with an X-Core?
-
I would like the output of the command, for the X-Core and X-Peak models. The key is the first 8 digits, the last 4 being 8086, Intel's vendor ID. Thanks.
X-Core (x700)
/root(1): pciconf -r pci0:31:0 0:256 24408086 0280000f 06010005 00800000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00004001 00000010 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00004081 00000010 09060b0c 000000d0 0a058003 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00005475 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000200 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00004004 00000000 00000000 00002002 00001f02 00000004 00000000 c0000010 14050000 00112233 45670291 017c000f 00000000 00000f47 00000200 ffffffffI'm using the WGXepc script and it works flawlessly!
-
@tix:
X-Core (x700)
/root(1): pciconf -r pci0:31:0 0:256 244080862440 is an 82801BA, Intel ICH2, datasheet here: http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/datasheet/82801ba-i-o-controller-hub-2-82801bam-i-o-controller-hub-2-mobile-datasheet.pdf
Somehow the existing WGXepc code does not seem to line up with the spec…
-
Hi,
how's going with the latest (0.9.2) package?Right now I am working on this:
- I divided / 2 the number of commands sent to LCDproc every cycle. So if before were sent 10 commands, now only 5
- I wrote a little better code for error handling
- I slowed down a bit the scrolling (just a little bit)
- Simplified the script to launch. There's no more lcdproc_client.sh.
Then I will:
4) add and test the "nice" command to the programs running
5) I will add a "top value" for waiting to the next cycle of 10 seconds. So it will be sure that the communication won't timeoutWhat else?
Ciao,
Michele -
Somehow the existing WGXepc code does not seem to line up with the spec…
Hmm, in what way?
There was a problem because the GPIO base is set to a non-standard value on the X-core.
On the other boxes it is at 0x480, which I believe is the standard value where as the X-Core is at 0x4080.Steve
-
Somehow the existing WGXepc code does not seem to line up with the spec…
Hmm, in what way?
There was a problem because the GPIO base is set to a non-standard value on the X-core.
On the other boxes it is at 0x480, which I believe is the standard value where as the X-Core is at 0x4080.Steve
The way I read it, this particular device ID is an ICH2, and has the GPIO base port stored at offset 0x58 (page 9-1). Fine. The value at that offset happens to be 4081, which, masked off is 4080 (this was listed in the pciconf command, and is already in your code). Fine. In your code, you use port 4080 + 0x0f. Offset 15 in the GPIO area is for GPIO level, and bits control pins. Fine. The blink register is at offset 0x18 (32 bit), so I am not sure how it can blink with just the level register, or how it is not possible to turn the LEDs off…
For the X-Core-e, the Level port controls on/off, the Blink port controls the, well, blinking, and it all can be turned off with putting the bit to zero.
-
I had to re-read the thread to remind myself what happened. I agree with you it doesn't make any sense! In fact you can see, here, where I was expecting the registers to work as you describe above but the experimental results show otherwise.
One thing that is different about the X-core is that you can set the LED state in the BIOS (though I've never tried it myself). And you have a choice of red or green and fast or slow flash. There is no fast/slow blink described in the documentation yet it is clearly available. :-\
Steve
-
Hello
I've tried the latest .92 package and my x-core will still become unresponsive at the 10 hour mark.
I'm out of ideas on what the issue could be… :(
-
@tix:
Hello
I've tried the latest .92 package and my x-core will still become unresponsive at the 10 hour mark.
I'm out of ideas on what the issue could be… :(
Hi Tix,
Thank you for the feedback. I am trying a new version with a lot of changes, if it passes my tests I will publish it… Cross your fingers...Ciao,
Michele -
@tix:
Hello
I've tried the latest .92 package and my x-core will still become unresponsive at the 10 hour mark.
I'm out of ideas on what the issue could be… :(
Hi Tix,
Thank you for the feedback. I am trying a new version with a lot of changes, if it passes my tests I will publish it… Cross your fingers...Ciao,
MicheleShot in the dark: is the client reading the responses back from LCDd? The release notes mentioned something about ignoring them causing unpleasant behavior …
