I am implementing software watchdogs to ensure that a 1kHz task is executing within its allotted deadline (i.e. 1ms). But I am wondering if there's exactly 1ms between the 1kHz starting and tick 1.
From my understanding, this is what happens when FreeRTOS starts
vPortSetupTimerInterrupt(); // Tick 0 starts
...
prvPortStartFirstTick(); // Context switch
// After the context switch, the 1kHz task starts
Between tick 0 and tick 1, the 1kHz task doesn't get a full 1ms to do useful work because some time was spent on calling vPortSetupTimerInterrupt() to prvPortStartFirstTick(). Is this correct? And if so, is this a cause for concern? Or is the extra delay time so short that it is negligible?
I am developing on ARM Cortex M4 (STM32F302 series).
You are correct in that executing from vPortSetupTimerInterrupt() to prvPortStartFirstTick() (not sure what that function is, not a FreeRTOS supplied one) does take some time - as does executing any instruction. If it is a concern or not depends on your application - but if it is a concern then you are probably not going to every get exactly 1ms to the first tick. Think about doing it the other way around - say the first task starts before the timer is started - then the first task will have to be the one that starts the time - so again you are going to spend some time in the task doing something other than what you want the task to be doing.
Related
I want to use a timer to read the data from a simulink block to the workspace during simulation.
I made a simple mdl model composed of a clock connected to a scope.
Then I wrote this simple code:
t=timer('period', 1, 'taskstoexecute', 10, 'executionmode', 'fixedrate');
t.Timerfcn={#TimeStep};
start(t)
function time = TimeStep (~,~)
load_system('mymodel');
set_param('mymodel','SimulationCommand','start');
block='mymodel/Clock';
rto=get_param(block,'runtimeObject');
time=rto.OutputPort(1).Data;
disp(time);
The problem is that when I run the code for simulation time 10, it shows me "0" in work space and repeat it ten times. I assume that it should show me the time from 1 to 10. I have also modifies the solver to a discrete solver with time step=1.
The other thing I do not understand is that when I put a ramp function instead of the clock and change it to:
block='mymodel/Ramp';'
then I receive an error of "too many inputs".
I would appreciate any help.
You have two things that count time and seem to think that one of them is controlling the time in the other. It isn't.
More specifically, you have
A 'Timer' in MATLAB that you have asked to run a certain piece of code once per second over 10 seconds. (Both times are measured in wall clock time.)
Some MATLAB code that loads a Simulink model (if it isn't already loaded); starts the model (if it isn't already started); and gets the value on the output of a Clock block that is in the model (it does this only once each time the code is executed). As with every Simulink model, it will execute as fast as it can until the simulation end time is reached (or something else stops it).
So, in your case, each time the Timer executes, the simulation is started, the value at the output of the clock is obtained/printed (which since it happens very quickly after the start of the model it prints out that the simulation time is 0); and then (because you have a very simple simulation that takes no time at all to finish) the simulation terminates.
The above happens 10 times, each time printing the value of the clock at the start of the simulation, i.e. 0.
To see other values you need to make your simulation run longer - taking at least 1 second of wall clock time. For instance, if you change the solver to fixed step and put in a very small step size, something like 0.000001, then the simulation will probably take several seconds (of wall clock time) to execute.
Now you should see the Timer print different times as sometimes the model will still be executing when the code is called (1 second of wall clock time later).
But fundamentally you need to understand that the Timer is not controlling, and is not dependent upon, the simulation time, and vice-versa.
(I'm not sure about the issue with using Ramp but suspect it's got to with Clock being a fundamental block while Ramp is a masked subsystem.)
I'm working on an embedded project that's running on an ARM Cortex M3 based microcontroller. Some code provided by our vendor uses a delay function that sets up built-in hardware timer and then spins until the timer expires. Typically this is used to wait between 1 and a couple hundred microseconds. These delays are almost because they are waiting on some register, chip or bus to complete an action and need to wait at least the given number of microseconds. The hardware timer also appears to cost at least 6 microseconds in overhead to setup.
In a multithreaded environment this is a problem because there are N threads but only 1 hardware timer. I could disable interrupts while the timer is being used to prevent context switches and thus race conditions but it seems a bit ugly. I am thinking of replacing the function that uses the hardware timer with a function that uses the ARM CPU Cycle Counter (CCNT). Are there are pitfalls I am missing or other alternatives? Obviously the cycle counter function requires it be tuned to the proper CPU frequency which will never change for our system, but I suppose could be detected at boot programmatically using the hardware timer.
Setup the timer once at startup and let the counter run continuously. When you want to start a delay, read the counter value and remember this start value. Then in the delay loop read the counter value again and loop until the counter value minus the start value is greater than or equal to the requested delay ticks. (If you do the subtraction correctly then rollovers will wash out and you don't need special handling to check for them.)
You could multiplex your timer such that you have a table of when each thread wants to fire off and a function pointer / vector for execution. When the timer interrupt occurs, fire off that thread's interrupt and then set the timer to the next one in the list, minus elapsed time. This is what I see many *nix operating systems do in their kernel code, so there should be code to pull from as example.
A bigger concern is the fact that you are spin locking the thread waiting for the timer. Besides CPU usage, and depending on what OS you have (or if you have an OS) you could easily introduce thread inversion issues or even full on lock ups. It might be better to use thread primitives instead so that any OS can actually sleep your threads and wake them when needed.
Short question: How to get seconds since reset in STM32L051T6 microcontroller?
My effort and detailed issue:
I am using an STM32L051T6 series microcontroller. I need to count seconds since power on. I am also using low power mode. So I wrote code to use wakeup timer interrupt functionality of internal RTC of microcontroller. I used 1 second interval wake up timer with external LSE clock of 32768 Hz. I observed the accumulated seconds since power on (SSPO) after 3 days and found that it is falling behind by 115 seconds compared to actual time elapsed. My guess for this drift is interrupt latency in executing wakeup timer interrupt. How can I remove drift of this 115 seconds? Or is there any other better method than using wakeup interrupt to count seconds since power on?
UPDATE:
I tried to use Systick with HAL_GetTick() function as seconds since power on. But even systick is also getting delayed over time.
If you want to measure time with accuracy over a longer period, an RTC is the way to go. As you mentioned that you have an RTC, you can use the method below.
At startup, load the RTC with zero.
Then you can read the seconds elapsed when required without the errors above.
Edit: As per comment, the RTC can be changed by user. In that case,
If you can modify the RTC write function called by the user, then when the user calls the RTC write function, you update a global variable VarA = time set by user. The elapsed time will be Time read by RTC - VarA.
If the RTC is accurate, you should use the RTC by storing its value at boot time and later comparing to that saved value. But you said that the RTC can be reset by user so I can see two ways to cope with it:
if you have enough control on the system, replace the command or IHM that a user can use to reset the clock with a wrapper that inform you module and allows to read the RTC before and after it has been reset
if you have not enough control or cannot wrap the user's reset (because it uses a direct system call, etc.) use a timer to control the RTC value on every second
But you should define a threshold on the delta on RTC clock. If it is small, it is likely to be an adjustment because unless your system uses an atomic clock, even RTC can derive over time. In that case I would not care because you can hardly know whether it derived since last reboot or not. If you want a more clever algorythm, you can make the threshold dependant on the current time since last reboot: the longer the system is up, the higher the probability it has derived since then.
On the opposite, a large delta is likely to be a correction because RTC was blatantly erroneous, the saving battery is out of use, or what else. In that case you should compute the new start RTC time that gives same duration with the new RTC value.
As a rule of thumb, I would use a threshold of about 1 or 2 seconds per uptime day without RTC clock adjustement (ref) - meaning I would also store the time of last RTC adjustement, initially boot time.
Come someone please tell me how this function works? I'm using it in code and have an idea how it works, but I'm not 100% sure exactly. I understand the concept of an input variable N incrementing down, but how the heck does it work? Also, if I am using it repeatedly in my main() for different delays (different iputs for N), then do I have to "zero" the function if I used it somewhere else?
Reference: MILLISEC is a constant defined by Fcy/10000, or system clock/10000.
Thanks in advance.
// DelayNmSec() gives a 1mS to 65.5 Seconds delay
/* Note that FCY is used in the computation. Please make the necessary
Changes(PLLx4 or PLLx8 etc) to compute the right FCY as in the define
statement above. */
void DelayNmSec(unsigned int N)
{
unsigned int j;
while(N--)
for(j=0;j < MILLISEC;j++);
}
This is referred to as busy waiting, a concept that just burns some CPU cycles thus "waiting" by keeping the CPU "busy" doing empty loops. You don't need to reset the function, it will do the same if called repeatedly.
If you call it with N=3, it will repeat the while loop 3 times, every time counting with j from 0 to MILLISEC, which is supposedly a constant that depends on the CPU clock.
The original author of the code have timed and looked at the assembler generated to get the exact number of instructions executed per Millisecond, and have configured a constant MILLISEC to match that for the for loop as a busy-wait.
The input parameter N is then simply the number of milliseconds the caller want to wait and the number of times the for-loop is executed.
The code will break if
used on a different or faster micro controller (depending on how Fcy is maintained), or
the optimization level on the C compiler is changed, or
c-compiler version is changed (as it may generate different code)
so, if the guy who wrote it is clever, there may be a calibration program which defines and configures the MILLISEC constant.
This is what is known as a busy wait in which the time taken for a particular computation is used as a counter to cause a delay.
This approach does have problems in that on different processors with different speeds, the computation needs to be adjusted. Old games used this approach and I remember a simulation using this busy wait approach that targeted an old 8086 type of processor to cause an animation to move smoothly. When the game was used on a Pentium processor PC, instead of the rocket majestically rising up the screen over several seconds, the entire animation flashed before your eyes so fast that it was difficult to see what the animation was.
This sort of busy wait means that in the thread running, the thread is sitting in a computation loop counting down for the number of milliseconds. The result is that the thread does not do anything else other than counting down.
If the operating system is not a preemptive multi-tasking OS, then nothing else will run until the count down completes which may cause problems in other threads and tasks.
If the operating system is preemptive multi-tasking the resulting delays will have a variability as control is switched to some other thread for some period of time before switching back.
This approach is normally used for small pieces of software on dedicated processors where a computation has a known amount of time and where having the processor dedicated to the countdown does not impact other parts of the software. An example might be a small sensor that performs a reading to collect a data sample then does this kind of busy loop before doing the next read to collect the next data sample.
I'm using a PIC18 with Fosc = 10MHz. So if I use Delay10KTCYx(250), I get 10,000 x 250 x 4 x (1/10e6) = 1 second.
How do I use the delay functions in the C18 for very long delays, say 20 seconds? I was thinking of just using twenty lines of Delay10KTCYx(250). Is there another more efficient and elegant way?
Thanks in advance!
It is strongly recommended that you avoid using the built-in delay functions such as Delay10KTCYx()
Why you might ask?
These delay functions are very inaccurate, and they may cause your code to be compiled in unexpected ways. Here's one such example where using the Delay10KTCYx() function can cause problems.
Let's say that you have a PIC18 microprocessor that has only two hardware timer interrupts. (Usually they have more but let's just say there are only two).
Now let's say you manually set up the first hardware timer interrupt to blink once per second exactly, to drive a heartbeat monitor LED. And let's say you set up the second hardware timer interrupt to interrupt every 50 milliseconds because you want to take some sort of digital or analog reading at exactly 50 milliseconds.
Now, lastly, let's say that in your main program you want to delay 100,000 clock cycles. So you put a call to Delay10KTCYx(10) in your main program. What happenes do you suppose? How does the PIC18 magically count off 100,000 clock cycles?
One of two things will happen. It may "hijack" one of your other hardware timer interrupts to get exactly 100,000 clock cycles. This would either cause your heartbeat sensor to not clock at exactly 1 second, or, cause your digital or analog readings to happen at some time other than every 50 milliseconds.
Or, the delay function will just call a bunch of Nop() and claim that 1 Nop() = 1 clock cycle. What isn't accounted for is "overheads" within the Delay10KTCYx(10) function itself. It has to increment a counter to keep track of things, and surely it takes more than 1 clock cycle to increment the timer. As the Delay10KTCYx(10) loops around and around it is just not capable of giving you exactly 100,000 clock cycles. Depending on a lot of factors you may get way more, or way less, clock cycles than you expected.
The Delay10KTCYx(10) should only be used if you need an "approximate" amount of time. And pre-canned delay functions shouldn't be used if you are already using the hardware timer interrupts for other purposes. The compiler may not even successfully compile when using Delay10KTCYx(10) for very long delays.
I would highly recommend that you set up one of your timer interrupts to interrupt your hardware at a known interval. Say 50,000 clock cycles. Then, each time the hardware interrupts, within your ISR code for that timer interrupt, increment a counter and reset the timer over again to 0 cycles. When enough 50,000 clock cycles have expired to equal 20 seconds (or in other words in your example, 200 timer interrupts at 50,000 cycles per interrupt), reset your counter. Basically my advice is that you should always manually handle time in a PIC and not rely on pre-canned Delay functions - rather build your own delay functions that integrate into the hardware timer of the chip. Yes, it's going to be extra work - "but why can't I just use this easy and nifty built-in delay function, why would they even put it there if it's gonna muck up my program?" - but this should become second nature. Just like you should be manually configuring EVERY SINGLE REGISTER in your PIC18 upon boot-up, whether you are using it or not, to prevent unexpected things from happening.
You'll get way more accurate timing - and way more predictable behavior from your PIC18. Using pre-canned Delay functions is a recipe for disaster... it may work... it may work on several projects... but sooner or later your code will go all buggy on you and you'll be left wondering why and I guarantee the culprit will be the pre-canned delay function.
To create very long time use an internal timer. This can helpful to avoid block in your application and you can check the running time. Please refer to PIC data sheet on how to setup a timer and its interrupt.
If you want a very high precision 1S time I suggest also to consider an external RTC device or an internal RTC if the micro has one.