I seem to be having a bit of trouble in waiting for the completion of serial data transmissions.
My interpretation of the relevant MSDN article is the EV_TXEMPTY event is the correct signal and which indicates that:
EV_TXEMPTY - The last character in the output buffer was sent.
However in my tests the event always fires immediately as soon as the data has been submitted to the buffer and long before the final has actually reached the wire. See the repro code below where the period is always zero.
Have I made an error in the implementation, am I misunderstanding the purpose of the flag, or is this feature simply not supported by modern drivers? In the latter case is there a viable workaround, say some form of synchronous line state request?
For the record the tests were conducted with FTDI USB-RS485 and TTL-232R devices in a Windows 10 system, a USB-SERIAL CH340 interface on a Windows 7 system, as well as the on-board serial interface of a 2005-vintage Windows XP machine. In the FTDI case sniffing the USB bus reveals only bulk out transactions and no obvious interrupt notification of the completion.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <windows.h>
static int fatal(void) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error: I/O error\n");
return 1;
}
int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {
static const char payload[] = "Hello, World!";
// Use a suitably low bitrate to maximize the delay
enum { BAUDRATE = 300 };
// Ask for the port name on the command line
if(argc != 2) {
fprintf(stderr, "Syntax: %s {COMx}\n", argv[0]);
return 1;
}
char path[MAX_PATH];
snprintf(path, sizeof path, "\\\\.\\%s", argv[1]);
// Open and configure the serial device
HANDLE handle = CreateFileA(path, GENERIC_WRITE, 0, NULL,
OPEN_EXISTING, 0, NULL);
if(handle == INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE)
return fatal();
DCB dcb = {
.DCBlength = sizeof dcb,
.BaudRate = BAUDRATE,
.fBinary = TRUE,
.ByteSize = DATABITS_8,
.Parity = NOPARITY,
.StopBits = ONESTOPBIT
};
if(!SetCommState(handle, &dcb))
return fatal();
if(!SetCommMask(handle, EV_TXEMPTY))
return fatal();
// Fire off a write request
DWORD written;
unsigned int elapsed = GetTickCount();
if(!WriteFile(handle, payload, sizeof payload, &written, NULL) ||
written != sizeof payload)
return fatal();
// Wait for transmit completion and measure time elapsed
DWORD event;
if(!WaitCommEvent(handle, &event, NULL))
return fatal();
if(!(event & EV_TXEMPTY))
return fatal();
elapsed = GetTickCount() - elapsed;
// Display the final result
const unsigned int expected_time =
(sizeof payload * 1000 /* ms */ * 10 /* bits/char */) / BAUDRATE;
printf("Completed in %ums, expected %ums\n", elapsed, expected_time);
return 0;
}
The background is that this is part of a Modbus RTU protocol test suite where I am attempting to inject >3.5 character idle delays between characters on the wire to validate device response.
Admittedly, an embedded realtime system would have been more far suitable for the task but for various reasons I would prefer to stick to a Windows environment while controlling the timing as best as possible.
According to the comments by #Hans Passant and #RbMm the output buffer being referred in the EV_TXEMPTY documentation is an intermediate buffer and the event indicates that data has been forwarded to the driver. No equivalent notification event is defined which encompasses the full chain down to the final device buffers.
No general workaround is presently clear to me short of a manual delay based upon the bitrate and adding a significant worst-case margin for any remaining buffer layers to be traversed, inter-character gaps, clock skew, etc.
I would therefore very much appreciate answers with better alternate solutions.
Nevertheless, for my specific application I have implemented a viable workaround.
The target hardware is a half-duplex bus with a FTDI RS485 interface. This particular device offers an optional local-echo mode in which data actively transmitted onto the bus is not actively filtered from the reception.
After each transmission I am therefore able to wait for the expected echo to appear as a round-trip confirmation. In addition, this serves to detect certain faults such as a short-circuited bus.
Related
currently I try to sent 720 bytes from Windows application to custom STM32 device (now for testing purposes I use Blue Pill - STM32F103xxx). Ah, I forgot to point that I am totally newbie into programming :). So on device side I have 1000 bytes buffers for receiving and sending (Thanks to STMCube for this). Testing device with terminal program ( packets < than 64 bytes) works. Then I rework one of Microsoft examples to be able to sent more data to device. Used device driver on Windows is "usbser.sys". In short my console program do following:
Calculate SINE weave (360) samples - 16 bytes size
Sent them to USB Device as 720 bytes (byte size protocol for COM port)
My problem is that no more than 64 bytes comes into device.
Somewhere I read that reason for this can be into built in Rx,Tx Windows buffers (64 bytes long by mention somewhere on internet) and for this into code below I insert:
SetupComm(hCom,1000,1000)
in hope that this will solve my troubles but nope. Below is "my" code, any ideas how I can fix this?
#include <windows.h>
#include <tchar.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#define PI 3.14159265
void PrintCommState(DCB dcb)
{
// Print some of the DCB structure values
_tprintf(TEXT("\nBaudRate = %d, ByteSize = %d, Parity = %d, StopBits = %d\n"),
dcb.BaudRate,
dcb.ByteSize,
dcb.Parity,
dcb.StopBits);
}
int _tmain(int argc, TCHAR* argv[])
{
DCB dcb;
HANDLE hCom;
BOOL fSuccess;
const TCHAR* pcCommPort = TEXT("COM3"); // Most systems have a COM1 port
unsigned __int8 aOutputBuffer[720];// Data that will sent to device
unsigned __int16 aCalculatedWave[360];// Data that will sent to device
int iCnt; // temp counter to use everywhere
for (iCnt = 0; iCnt < 360; iCnt = iCnt + 1)
{
aCalculatedWave[iCnt] = (unsigned short)(0xFFFF * sin(iCnt * PI / 180));
if (iCnt > 180) aCalculatedWave[iCnt] = 0 - aCalculatedWave[iCnt];
}
// 16 bit aCalculatedWaveto to 8 bit aOutputBuffer
for (int i = 0, j = 0; i < 720; i += 2, ++j)
{
aOutputBuffer[i] = aCalculatedWave[j] >> 8; // Hi byte
aOutputBuffer[i + 1] = aCalculatedWave[j] & 0xFF; // Lo byte
}
// Open a handle to the specified com port.
hCom = CreateFile(pcCommPort,
GENERIC_READ | GENERIC_WRITE,
0, // must be opened with exclusive-access
NULL, // default security attributes
OPEN_EXISTING, // must use OPEN_EXISTING
0, // not overlapped I/O
NULL); // hTemplate must be NULL for comm devices
if (hCom == INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE)
{
// Handle the error.
printf("CreateFile failed with error %d.\n", GetLastError());
return (1);
}
if (SetupComm(hCom,1000,1000) !=0)
printf("Windows In/Out serial buffers changed to 1000 bytes\n");
else
printf("Buffers not changed with error %d.\n", GetLastError());
// Initialize the DCB structure.
SecureZeroMemory(&dcb, sizeof(DCB));
dcb.DCBlength = sizeof(DCB);
// Build on the current configuration by first retrieving all current
// settings.
fSuccess = GetCommState(hCom, &dcb);
if (!fSuccess)
{
// Handle the error.
printf("GetCommState failed with error %d.\n", GetLastError());
return (2);
}
PrintCommState(dcb); // Output to console
// Fill in some DCB values and set the com state:
// 57,600 bps, 8 data bits, no parity, and 1 stop bit.
dcb.BaudRate = CBR_9600; // baud rate
dcb.ByteSize = 8; // data size, xmit and rcv
dcb.Parity = NOPARITY; // parity bit
dcb.StopBits = ONESTOPBIT; // stop bit
fSuccess = SetCommState(hCom, &dcb);
if (!fSuccess)
{
// Handle the error.
printf("SetCommState failed with error %d.\n", GetLastError());
return (3);
}
// Get the comm config again.
fSuccess = GetCommState(hCom, &dcb);
if (!fSuccess)
{
// Handle the error.
printf("GetCommState failed with error %d.\n", GetLastError());
return (2);
}
PrintCommState(dcb); // Output to console
_tprintf(TEXT("Serial port %s successfully reconfigured.\n"), pcCommPort);
if (WriteFile(hCom, aOutputBuffer, 720, NULL, 0) != 0)
_tprintf(TEXT("720 bytes successfully writed to Serial port %s \n"), pcCommPort);
else
_tprintf(TEXT("Fail on write 720 bytes to Serial port %s \n"), pcCommPort);
return (0);
}
USB bulk endpoints implement a stream-based protocol, i.e. an endless stream of bytes. This is in contrast to a message-based protocol. So USB bulk endpoints have no concept of messages, message start or end. This also applies to USB CDC as it is based on bulk endpoints.
At the lower USB level, the stream of bytes is split into packets of at most 64 bytes. As per USB full-speed standard, packets cannot be larger than 64 bytes.
If the host sends small chunks of data that are more than 1ms apart, they will be sent and received in separate packets and it looks as if USB is a message-based protocol. However, for chunks of more than 64 bytes, they are split into smaller packets. And if small chunks are sent with less than 1ms in-between, the host will merge them into bigger packets.
Your design seems to require that data is grouped, e.g. the group of 720 bytes mentioned in the question. If this is a requirement, the grouping must be implemented, e.g. by first sending the size of the group and then the data.
Since larger groups are split into chunks of 64 bytes and the receive callback is called for every packet, the packets must be joined until the full group is available.
Also note a few problems in your current code (see usbd_cdc_if.c, line 264):
USBD_CDC_SetRxBuffer(&hUsbDeviceFS, &Buf[0]);
USBD_CDC_ReceivePacket(&hUsbDeviceFS);
NewDataFromUsb = *Len;
USBD_CDC_SetRxBuffer sets the buffer for the next packet to be received. If you always use the same buffer – as in this case – it's not needed. The initial setup is sufficient. However, it could be used to set a new buffer if the current packet does not contain a full group.
Despite its name, USBD_CDC_ReceivePacket does not receive a packet. Instead, it gives the OK to receive the next package. It should only be called if the data in the buffer has been processed and the buffer is ready to receive the next packet. Your current implementation runs the risk that the buffer is overwritten before it is processed, in particular if you send a group of more than 64 bytes, which will likely result in a quick succession of packets.
Note that Windows hasn't been mentioned here. The Windows code seems to be okay. And changing to Winusb.sys will just make your life harder but not get you packets bigger than 64 bytes.
I inherited some ALSA code that runs on a Linux embedded platform.
The existing implementation does blocking reads and writes using snd_pcm_readi() and snd_pcm_writei().
I am tasked to make this run on an ARM processor, but I find that the blocked interleaved reads push the CPU to 99%, so I am exploring non-blocking reads and writes.
I open the device as can be expected:
snd_pcm_handle *handle;
const char* hwname = "plughw:0"; // example name
snd_pcm_open(&handle, hwname, SND_PCM_STREAM_CAPTURE, SND_PCM_NONBLOCK);
Other ALSA stuff then happens which I can supply on request.
Noteworthy to mention at this point that:
we set a sampling rate of 48,000 [Hz]
the sample type is signed 32 bit integer
the device always overrides our requested period size to 1024 frames
Reading the stream like so:
int32* buffer; // buffer set up to hold #period_size samples
int actual = snd_pcm_readi(handle, buffer, period_size);
This call takes approx 15 [ms] to complete in blocking mode. Obviously, variable actual will read 1024 on return.
The problem is; in non-blocking mode, this function also takes 15 msec to complete and actual also always reads 1024 on return.
I would expect that the function would return immediately, with actual being <=1024 and quite possibly reading "EAGAIN" (-11).
In between read attempts I plan to put the thread to sleep for a specific amount of time, yielding CPU time to other processes.
Am I misunderstanding the ALSA API? Or could it be that my code is missing a vital step?
If the function returns a value of 1024, then at least 1024 frames were available at the time of the call.
(It's possible that the 15 ms is time needed by the driver to actually start the device.)
Anyway, blocking or non-blocking mode does not make any difference regarding CPU usage. To reduce CPU usage, replace the default device with plughw or hw, but then you lose features like device sharing or sample rate/format conversion.
I solved my problem by wrapping snd_pcm_readi() as follows:
/*
** Read interleaved stream in non-blocking mode
*/
template <typename SampleType>
snd_pcm_sframes_t snd_pcm_readi_nb(snd_pcm_t* pcm, SampleType* buffer, snd_pcm_uframes_t size, unsigned samplerate)
{
const snd_pcm_sframes_t avail = ::snd_pcm_avail(pcm);
if (avail < 0) {
return avail;
}
if (avail < size) {
snd_pcm_uframes_t remain = size - avail;
unsigned long msec = (remain * 1000) / samplerate;
static const unsigned long SLEEP_THRESHOLD_MS = 1;
if (msec > SLEEP_THRESHOLD_MS) {
msec -= SLEEP_THRESHOLD_MS;
// exercise for the reader: sleep for msec
}
}
return ::snd_pcm_readi(pcm, buffer, size);
}
This works quite well for me. My audio process now 'only' takes 19% CPU time.
And it matters not if the PCM interface was opened using SND_PCM_NONBLOCK or 0.
Going to perform callgrind analysis to see if more CPU cycles can be saved elsewhere in the code.
I'm testing the CAN interface on an embedded device (SOC / ARM core / Linux) using SocketCAN, and I want to send data as fast as possible for testing, using efficient code.
I can open the CAN device ("can0") as a BSD socket, and send frames with "write". This all works well.
My desktop can obviously generate frames faster than the CAN transmission rate (I'm using 500000 bps). To send efficiently, I tried using a "select" on the socket file descriptor to wait for it to become ready, followed by the "write". However, the "select" seems to return immediately regardless of the state of the send buffer, and "write" also doesn't block. This means that when the buffer fills up, I get an error from "write" (return value -1), and errno is set to 105 ("No buffer space available").
This mean I have to wait an arbitrary amount of time, then try the write again, which seems very inefficient (polling!).
Here's my code (C, edited for brevity):
printf("CAN Data Generator\n");
int skt; // CAN raw socket
struct sockaddr_can addr;
struct canfd_frame frame;
const int WAIT_TIME = 500;
// Create socket:
skt = socket(PF_CAN, SOCK_RAW, CAN_RAW);
// Get the index of the supplied interface name:
unsigned int if_index = if_nametoindex(argv[1]);
// Bind CAN device to socket created above:
addr.can_family = AF_CAN;
addr.can_ifindex = if_index;
bind(skt, (struct sockaddr *)&addr, sizeof(addr));
// Generate example CAN data: 8 bytes; 0x11,0x22,0x33,...
// ...[Omitted]
// Send CAN frames:
fd_set fds;
const struct timeval timeout = { .tv_sec=2, .tv_usec=0 };
struct timeval this_timeout;
int ret;
ssize_t bytes_writ;
while (1)
{
// Use 'select' to wait for socket to be ready for writing:
FD_ZERO(&fds);
FD_SET(skt, &fds);
this_timeout = timeout;
ret = select(skt+1, NULL, &fds, NULL, &this_timeout);
if (ret < 0)
{
printf("'select' error (%d)\n", errno);
return 1;
}
else if (ret == 0)
{
// Timeout waiting for buffer to be free
printf("ERROR - Timeout waiting for buffer to clear.\n");
return 1;
}
else
{
if (FD_ISSET(skt, &fds))
{
// Ready to write!
bytes_writ = write(skt, &frame, CAN_MTU);
if (bytes_writ != CAN_MTU)
{
if (errno == 105)
{
// Buffer full!
printf("X"); fflush(stdout);
usleep(20); // Wait for buffer to clear
}
else
{
printf("FAIL - Error writing CAN frame (%d)\n", errno);
return 1;
}
}
else
{
printf("."); fflush(stdout);
}
}
else
{
printf("-"); fflush(stdout);
}
}
usleep(WAIT_TIME);
}
When I set the per-frame WAIT_TIME to a high value (e.g. 500 uS) so that the buffer never fills, I see this output:
CAN Data Generator
...............................................................................
................................................................................
...etc
Which is good! At 500 uS I get 54% CAN bus utilisation (according to canbusload utility).
However, when I try a delay of 0 to max out my transmission rate, I see:
CAN Data Generator
................................................................................
............................................................X.XX..X.X.X.X.XXX.X.
X.XX..XX.XX.X.XX.X.XX.X.X.X.XX..X.X.X.XX..X.X.X.XX.X.XX...XX.X.X.X.X.XXX.X.XX.X.
X.X.XXX.X.XX.X.X.X.XXX.X.X.X.XX.X.X.X.X.XX..X..X.XX.X..XX.X.X.X.XX.X..X..X..X.X.
.X.X.XX.X.XX.X.X.X.X.X.XX.X.X.XXX.X.X.X.X..XX.....XXX..XX.X.X.X.XXX.X.XX.XX.XX.X
.X.X.XX.XX.XX.X.X.X.X.XX.X.X.X.X.XX.XX.X.XXX...XX.X.X.X.XX..X.XX.X.XX.X.X.X.X.X.
The initial dots "." show the buffer filling up; Once the buffer is full, "X" starts appearing meaning that the "write" call failed with error 105.
Tracing through the logic, this means the "select" must have returned and the "FD_ISSET(skt, &fds)" was true, although the buffer was full! (or did I miss something?).
The SockedCAN docs just say "Writing CAN frames can be done similarly, with the write(2) system call"
This post suggests using "select".
This post suggests that "write" won't block for CAN priority arbitration, but doesn't cover other circumstances.
So is "select" the right way to do it? Should my "write" block? What other options could I use to avoid polling?
After a quick look at canbusload:184, it seems that it computes efficiency (#data/#total bits on the bus).
On the other hand, according to this, max efficiency for CAN bus is around 57% for 8-byte frames, so you seem not to be far away from that 57%... I would say you are indeed flooding the bus.
When setting a 500uS delay, 500kbps bus bitrate, 8-byte frames, it gives you a (control+data) bitrate of 228kbps, which is lower than max bitrate of the CAN bus, so, no bottleneck here.
Also, since in this case only 1 socket is being monitored, you don't need pselect, really. All you can do with pselect and 1 socket can be done without pselect and using write.
(Disclamer: hereinafter, this is just guessing since I cannot test it right now, sorry.)
As of why the behavior of pselect, think that the buffer could have byte semantics, so it tells you there is still room for more bytes (1 at least), not necessarily for more can_frames. So, when returning, pselect does not inform you can send the whole CAN frame. I guess you could solve this by using SIOCOUTQ and the max size of the Rx buffer SO_SNDBUF, but not sure if it works for CAN sockets (the nice thing would be to use SO_SNDLOWAT flags, but it is not changable in Linux's implementation).
So, to answer your questions:
Is "select" the right way to do it?
Well, you can do it both ways, either (p)select or write, since you are only waiting for one file descriptor, there is no real difference.
Should my "write" block? It should if there is no single byte available in the send buffer.
What other options could I use to avoid polling? Maybe by ioctl'ing SIOCOUTQ and getsockopt'ing SO_SNDBUF and substracting... you will need to check this yourself. Alternatively, maybe you could set the send buffer size to a multiple of sizeof(can_frame) and see if it keeps you signaling when less than sizeof(can_frame) are available.
Anyhow, if you are interested in having a more precise timing, you could use a BCM socket. There, you can instruct the kernel to send a specific frame at a specific interval. Once set, the process run in kernel space, without any system call. In this way, user-kernel buffer problem is avoided. I would test different rates until canbusload shows no rise in bus utilization.
select and poll worked for me right with SocketCan. However, carefull configuration is require.
some background:
between user app and the HW, there are 2 buffers:
socket buffer, where its size (in bytes) is controlled by the setsockopt's SO_SNDBUF option
driver's qdisc, where its size (in packets) is controlled by the "ifconfig can0 txqueuelen 5" command.
data path is: user app "write" command --> socket buffer -> driver's qdisc -> HW TX mailbox.
2 flow control points exist along this path:
when there is no free TX mailboxe, driver freeze driver's qdisc (__QUEUE_STATE_DRV_XOFF), to prevent more packets to be dequeued from driver's qdisc into HW. it will be un-freezed when TX mailbox is free (upon TX completion interrupt).
when socket buffer goes above half of its capacity, poll/select blocks, until socket buffer goes beyond half of its capacity.
now, assume that socket buffer has room for 20 packets, while driver's qdisc has room for 5 packets. lets assume also that HW have single TX mailbox.
poll/select let user write up to 10 packets.
those packets are moved down to socket buffer.
5 of those packets continue and fill driver's qdisc.
driver dequeue 1st packet from driver's qdisc, put it into HW TX mailbox and freeze driver's qdisc (=no more dequeue). now there is room for 1 packet in driver's qdisc
6th packet is moved down successfully from socket buffer to driver's qdisc.
7th packet is moved down from socket buffer to driver's qdisc, but since there is no room - it is dropped and error 105 ("No buffer space available") is generated.
what is the solution?
in the above assumptions, lets configure socket buffer for 8 packets. in this case, poll/select will block user app after 4 packets, ensuring that there is room in driver's qdisc for all of those 4 packets.
however, socket buffer is configured to bytes, not to packet. translation should be made as the following: each CAN packet occupy ~704 bytes at socket buffer (most of them for the socket structure). so, to configure socket buffer to 8 packet, the size in bytes should be 8*704:
int size = 8*704;
setsockopt(s, SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDBUF, &size, sizeof(size));
I'm trying to implement a timeout for some hardware transmissions, to add security to a big project. I already implemented timeout using select for UART transmission, but I don't know how to add a timeout in a SPI transmission.
This is my reading code:
int spi_read(int fd, char command, char* buffer, int size, int timeout)
{
struct spi_ioc_transfer xfer[2];
int status;
memset(buffer, 0, sizeof(buffer));
memset(xfer, 0, sizeof(xfer));
xfer[0].tx_buf = (unsigned int)(&command);
xfer[0].len = 1;
xfer[1].rx_buf = (unsigned int)buffer;
xfer[1].len = size;
status = ioctl(fd, SPI_IOC_MESSAGE(2), xfer);
if(status < 0)
return NOERROR;
else
return EHWFAULT1;
}
It sends a byte sized command and receives a response of certain size (in half duplex mode). How can I implement a timeout in the response? Can it be implemented using select? Should I separe both transactions and use select or better use an alarm?
Then, I have the same question for a full duplex mode, which is implemented too using ioctl. Can you give me any hints?
In hardware the SPI master does not 'wait' for a response. By definition, the SPI master provides the clock cycles and the slave must reply. The concept of waiting for a response doesn't apply to the SPI bus. (I'm assuming you're operating the SPI master)
(deeper in the protocol, the SPI might poll the hardware to see if it's done/ready; but the SPI bus itself is getting an immediate answer every time).
To clarify: the SPI clocks in whatever is on the SPI MISO pin. Whatever level is on the MISO pin is the reply, even if the slave is not explicitly driving a level. The only way to detect a non responsive slave is to pullup/pulldown the MISO in a way that can not be interpreted as a valid message.
My scenario, I'm collecting network packets and if packets match a network filter I want to record the time difference between consecutive packets, this last part is the part that doesn't work. My problem is that I cant get accurate sub-second measurements no matter what C timer function I use. I've tried: gettimeofday(), clock_gettime(), and clock().
I'm looking for assistance to figure out why my timing code isn't working properly.
I'm running on a cygwin environment.
Compile Options: gcc -Wall capture.c -o capture -lwpcap -lrt
Code snippet :
/*globals*/
int first_time = 0;
struct timespec start, end;
double sec_diff = 0;
main() {
pcap_t *adhandle;
const struct pcap_pkthdr header;
const u_char *packet;
int sockfd = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
.... (previous I create socket/connect - works fine)
save_attr = tty_set_raw();
while (1) {
packet = pcap_next(adhandle, &header); // Receive a packet? Process it
if (packet != NULL) {
got_packet(&header, packet, adhandle);
}
if (linux_kbhit()) { // User types message to channel
kb_char = linux_getch(); // Get user-supplied character
if (kb_char == 0x03) // Stop loop (exit channel) if user hits Ctrl+C
break;
}
}
tty_restore(save_attr);
close(sockfd);
pcap_close(adhandle);
printf("\nCapture complete.\n");
}
In got_packet:
got_packet(const struct pcap_pkthdr *header, const u_char *packet, pcap_t * p){ ... {
....do some packet filtering to only handle my packets, set match = 1
if (match == 1) {
if (first_time == 0) {
clock_gettime( CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &start );
first_time++;
}
else {
clock_gettime( CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &end );
sec_diff = (end.tv_sec - start.tv_sec) + ((end.tv_nsec - start.tv_nsec)/1000000000.0); // Packet difference in seconds
printf("sec_diff: %ld,\tstart_nsec: %ld,\tend_nsec: %ld\n", (end.tv_sec - start.tv_sec), start.tv_nsec, end.tv_nsec);
printf("sec_diffcalc: %ld,\tstart_sec: %ld,\tend_sec: %ld\n", sec_diff, start.tv_sec, end.tv_sec);
start = end; // Set the current to the start for next match
}
}
}
I record all packets with Wireshark to compare, so I expect the difference in my timer to be the same as Wireshark's, however that is never the case. My output for tv_sec will be correct, however tv_nsec is not even close. Say there is a 0.5 second difference in wireshark, my timer will say there is a 1.999989728 second difference.
Basically, you will want to use a timer with a higher resolution
Also, I did not check in libpcap, but I am pretty sure that libpcap can give you the time at which each packet was received. In which case, it will be closest that you can get to what Wireshark displays.
I don't think that it is the clocks that are your problem, but the way that you are waiting on new data. You should use a polling function to see when you have new data from either the socket or from the keyboard. This will allow your program to sleep when there is no new data for it to process. This is likely to make the operating system be nicer to your program when it does have data to process and schedule it quicker. This also allows you to quit the program without having to wait for the next packet to come in. Alternately you could attempt to run your program at really high or real time priority.
You should consider getting the current time at the first instance after you get a packet if the filtering can take very long. You may also want to consider multiple threads for this program if you are trying to capture data on a fast and busy network. Especially if you have more than one processor, but since you are doing some pritnfs which may block. I noticed you had a function to set a tty to raw mode, which I assume is the standard output tty. If you are actually using a serial terminal that could slow things down a lot, but standard out to a xterm can also be slow. You may want to consider setting stdout to fully buffered rather than line buffered. This should speed up the output. (man setvbuf)