I want to clarify about timers in linux, how they are behaving?
I know in micro-controllers the timers/counters we use the reference, timing of machine instruction to execute.so there we could make it loop for how much time we need sleep/timer/counter.
But in linux where & how it will take the reference that if i use sleep(5), exactly 5 seconds are elapsed.If any one know please clarify me kindly.
Every operating system kernel (that I know of) has a whole machine independent framework for timers. This is pretty much one of the most central things a kernel must have because we need timers for everything, process scheduling, dealing with hardware errors, select/poll timeouts, network protocols, etc. At any point in time your kernel has dozens, if not thousands of timers waiting to be executed at some point in the future. Most of them will be canceled and never executed.
The simplest framework that pretty much everyone uses sets up one of the many clocks in a machine to generate an interrupt at a set interval. 100Hz is the most common, Windows (at least in the past) sets it to 64Hz (but it can be changed by any application), some systems experimented with 1024Hz. The timer interrupt fires and the interrupt handler checks if there's anything queued up to do at that time and if there is, it is executed. There has been some work for Linux to improve this so that we can get shorter or longer intervals than 10ms depending on the next scheduled timer, both to improve the precision of the timers and to save power, but in general it works as described above.
If I understand your question correctly, you think that there is something that measures how much certain sequence of instructions takes and then loops until some amount of time passes. This is something that is almost never done because it wastes power and it blocks anything else from running at the same time and is also quite unreliable. It is still done in modern kernels, but very rarely and only when high precision is required when talking to really, really stupid hardware. Last time I had to do it was 17 years ago to talk to some ethernet controller where you had to manually implement MII by bit-banging in software, it was terrible and hung the system for quite a long time every time you (un-)plugged an ethernet cable. Nobody builds hardware that requires this anymore because it really ruins the performance of modern systems.
So in your question, sleep(5) will be implemented by registering a function in the timer framework to be called in 5 seconds from now and then putting the process to sleep. 5 seconds later the timer fires and the process gets awakened again.
Related
I have been asked a question but I am not sure if I answered it correctly.
"Is it possible to rely only on software timer?"
My answer was "yes, in theory".
But then I added:
"Just relying on hardware timer at the kernel loading (rtc) and then
software only is a mess to manage since we must be able to know
how many cpu cycles each instruction took + eventual cache miss +
branching cost + memory speed and put a counter after each one or
group (good luck with out-of-order cpu).
And do the calculation to derivate the current cpu cycle. That is
insane.
Not talking about the overall performance drop.
The best we could have is a brittle approximation of the time which
become more wrong over time. Even possibly on short laps."
But even if it seems logical to me, did my thinking go wrong?
Thanks
On current processors and hardware (e.g. Intel or AMD or ARM in laptops or desktops or tablets) with common operating systems (Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, MacOSX, Android, iOS, ...) processes are scheduled at random times. So cache behavior is non deterministic. Hence, instruction timing is non reproducible. You need some hardware time measurement.
A typical desktop or laptop gets hundreds, or thousands, of interrupts every second, most of them time related. Try running cat /proc/interrupts on a Linux machine twice, with a few seconds between the runs.
I guess that even with a single-tasked MS-DOS like operating system, you'll still get random behavior (e.g. induced by ACPI, or SMM). On some laptops, the processor frequency can be throttled by its temperature, which depends upon the CPU load and the external temperature...
In practice you really want to use some timer provided by the operating system. For Linux, read time(7)
So you practically cannot rely on a purely software timer. However, the processor has internal timers.... Even in principle, you cannot avoid timers on current processors ....
You might be able, if you can put your hardware in a very controlled environment (thermostatically) to run a very limited software (an OS-like free standing thing) sitting entirely in the processor cache and perhaps then get some determinism, but in practice current laptop or desktop (or tablet) hardware is non-deterministic and you cannot predict the time needed for a given small machine routine.
Timers are extremely useful in interesting (non-trivial) software, see e.g. J.Pitrat CAIA, a sleeping beauty blog entry for an interesting point. Also look at the many uses of watchdog timers in software (e.g. in the Parma Polyhedra Library)
Read also about Worst Case Execution Time (WCET).
So I would say that even in theory it is not possible to rely upon a purely software timer (unless of course that software uses the processor timers, which are hardware circuits). In the previous century (up to 1980s or 1990s) hardware was much more deterministic, and the amount of clock cycles or microsecond needed for each machine instruction was documented (but some instructions, e.g. division, needed a variable amount of time, depending on the actual data!).
I've got an experimental box of tricks running that, every 100 ms or so, will spit out a 4 microsecond long +5V pulse of electricity on a TTL line. The exact time that this happens is not known ahead of time, but it's important -- so I'd like to use the Red Hat 5.3 computer that essentially runs the experiment to service this TTL, and create a glorified timestamp.
At the moment, what I've done is wired the TTL into pin 13 of the parallel port (STATUS_SELECT, one of the input lines on a parallel port) on the linux box, spawn a process when the experiment starts, use chrt to change its scheduled priority to 99 -- i.e. high -- and then just poll the parallel port repeatedly in a while loop until the pin goes high. I then create an accurate timestamp, and, in a non-blocking way write it to disk.
Obviously, this is inefficient -- sometimes the process is suspended, and a TTL will be missed. As the computer is, itself, busy doing other things (namely acquiring data from my experimental bit of kit -- an MRI scanner!) this happens quite often. Polling is easy, but probably bad.
My question is this: doing something quickly when a TTL occurs seems like the bread-and-butter of computing, but, as far as I can tell, it's only possible to deal with interrupts on linux if you're a kernel module. The parallel port can generate interrupts, and libraries like paraport let you build kernel modules relatively quickly, where you have to supply your own handler.
Is the best way to deal with this problem and create accurate (±25 ms) timestamps for an experiment whenever that TTL comes in -- to write a kernel module that provides a list of recent interrupts to somewhere in /proc, and then read them out with a normal process later? Is that approach not going to work, and be very CPU inefficient -- or open a bag of worms to do with interrupt priority I'm not aware of?
Most importantly, this seems like it should be a solved problem -- is it, and if so do any wise people wish to point me in the right direction? Writing a kernel module seems like, frankly, a lot of hard, risky work for something that feels as if it should perhaps be simple.
The premise that "it's only possible to deal with interrupts on linux if you're a kernel module" dismisses some fairly common and effective strategies.
The simple course of action for responding to interrupts in userspace (especially infrequent ones) is to have a driver which created a kernel device (or in some cases sysfs node) where either a read() or perhaps a custom ioctl() from userspace will block until the interrupt occurs. You'd have to check if the default parallel port driver supports this, but it's extremely common with the GPIO drivers on embedded-type boards, and the basic scheme could be borrowed into the parallel port - provided that the hardware supports true interrupts.
If very precise timing is the goal, you might do better to customize the kernel module to record the timestamp there, and implement a mechanism where a read() from userspace blocks until the interrupt occurs, and then obtains the kernel's already recorded timestamp as the read data - thus avoiding the variable latency of waking userspace and calling back into the kernel to get the time.
You might also look at true local-bus serial ports (if present) as an alternate-interrupt capable interface in cases where the available parallel port is some partial or indirect implementation which doesn't support them.
In situations where your only available interface is something indirect and high latency such as USB, or where you want a lot of host- and operation-system- independence, then it may indeed make sense to use an external microcontroller. In that case, you would probably try to set the micro's clock from the host system, and then have it give you timestamp messages every time it sees an event. If your experiment only needs the timestamps to be relative to each other within a given experimental session, this should work well. But if you need to establish an absolute time synchronization across the USB latency, you may have to do some careful roundtrip measurement and then estimation of the latency in order to compensate it (see NTP for an extreme example).
Today my boss and I were having a discussion about some code I had written. My code downloads 3 files from a given HTTP/HTTPS link. I had multi-threaded the download so that all 3 files are downloading simultaneously in 3 separate threads. During this discussion, my boss tells me that the code is going to be shipped to people who will most likely be running old hardware and software (I'm talking Windows 2000).
Until this time, I had never considered how a threaded application would scale on older hardware. I realize that if the CPU has only 1 core, threads are useless and may even worsen performance. I have been wondering if this download task is an I/O operation. Meaning, if an API is blocked waiting for information from the HTTP/HTTPS server, will another thread that wants to do some calculation be scheduled meanwhile? Do older OSes do such scheduling?
Another thing he said: Since the code is going to be run on old machines, my application should not eat the CPU. He said use Sleep() calls after CPU intensive tasks to allow other programs some breathing space. Now I was always under the impression that using Sleep() is terrible in any program. Am I wrong? When is using Sleep() justified?
Thanks for looking!
I have been wondering if this download task is an I/O operation.
Meaning, if an API is blocked waiting for information from the
HTTP/HTTPS server, will another thread that wants to do some
calculation be scheduled meanwhile? Do older OSes do such scheduling?
Yes they do. That's the joke of having blocked IO. The thread is suspended and other calculations (threads) take place until an event wakes up the blocked thread. That's why it makes completely sense to split it up into threads even for single core machines instead of doing some poor man scheduling between the downloads yourself in a single thread.
Of course your downloads affect each other regarding bandwith, so threading won't help to speedup the download :-)
Another thing he said: Since the code is going to be run on old
machines, my application should not eat the CPU. He said use Sleep()
calls after CPU intensive tasks to allow other programs some breathing
space.
Actually using sleep AFTER the task finished won't help here. Doing Sleep after a certain time of calculation (doing sort of time slicing) before going on with the calculation could help. But this is only true for cooperative systems (e.g. like Windows 3.11). This does not play a role for preemptive systems where the scheduler uses time slicing to allocate calculation time to threads. Here it would be more important to think about lowering the priority for CPU intensive tasks in order to give other tasks precedence...
Now I was always under the impression that using Sleep() is terrible
in any program. Am I wrong? When is using Sleep() justified?
This really depends on what you are doing. If you implement sort of busy waiting for a certain flag being set which is set maybe after few seconds it's better to recheck if it's set after going to sleep for a while in order to give up your scheduled time slice instead of just buring CPU power with checking for a flag never being set.
In modern systems there is no sense in introducing Sleep in a calculation as it will only slow down your calculation.
Scheduling is subject to the OS's scheduler. He's the one with the "big picture". In my opinion every approach to "do it better" is only valid inside the scope of a specific application where you have the overview over certain relationships that are not obvious to the scheduler.
Addendum:
I did some research and found that Windows supports preemptive multitasking from Windows 95. The Windows NT-line (where Windows 2000 belongs to) always supported preemptive multitasking.
I am a beginning C programmer (though not a beginning programmer) looking to dive into a project to teach myself C. My project is music-based, and because of this I am curious whether there are any 'best practices' per-se, when it comes to timing functions.
Just to clarify, my project is pretty much an attempt to build some barebones music notation/composition software (remember, emphasis on barebones). I was originally thinking about using OSX as my platform, but I want to do it in C, not Obj-C (though I know it would probably be easier...CoreAudio looked like a pretty powerful tool for this kind of stuff). So even though I don't have to build OSX apps in Obj-C, I will probably end up building this on a linux system (probably debian...).
Thanks everyone, for your great answers.
There are two accurate methods for timing functions:
Single process execution.
Timer event handler / callback
Single Process Execution
Most modern computers execute more than one program simultaneously. Actually, they execute pieces of many programs, swapping them out based on priorities and other metrics to look like more than one program is executing at the same time. This overhead effects timing in programs. Either the program gets delayed in reading the time or the OS gets delayed in setting its own time variables.
The solution in this case is to eliminate as many tasks from running. The ideal environment is for best accuracy is to have your program as the sole program running. Some OSes provide API for superuser applications to block all other programs or kill them.
Timer event handling / callback
Since the OS can't be trusted to execute your program with high precision, most OS's will provide Timer APIs. Many of these APIs include the ability to call one of your functions when the timer expires. This is known as a callback function. Other OS's may send a message or generate an event when the timer expires. These fall under the class of timer handlers. The callback process has less overhead than the handlers and thus is more accurate.
Music Hardware
Although you may have your program send music to the speakers, many computers now have separate processors that play music. This frees up the main processor and provides more continuous notes, rather than sounds separated by silent gaps due to platform overhead of your program send the next sounds to the speaker.
A quality music processor has at least these to functions:
Start Playing
End Music Notification
Start Playing
This is the function where you tell the music processor where your data is and the size of the data. The processor will start playing the music.
End Music Notification
You provide the processor with a pointer to a function that it will call when the music data has been processed. Nice processors will call the function early so there will be no gaps in the sounds while reloading.
All of this is platform dependent and may not be standard across platforms.
Hope this helps.
This is quite a vast area, and, depending on exactly what you want to do, potentially very difficult.
You don't give much away by saying your project is "music based".
Is it a musical score typesetting program?
Is it processing audio?
Is it filtering MIDI data?
Is it sequencing MIDI data?
Is it generating audio from MIDI data
Does it only perform playback?
Does it need to operate in a real time environment?
Your question though hints at real time operation, so in that case...
The general rule when working in a real time environment is don't do anything which may block the real time thread. This includes:
Calling free/malloc/calloc/etc (dynamic memory allocation/deallocation).
File I/O.any
Use of spinlocks/semaphores/mutexes upon threads.
Calls to GUI code.
Calls to printf.
Bearing these considerations in mind for a real time music application, you're going to have to learn how to do multi-threading in C and how to pass data from the UI/GUI thread to the real time thread WITHOUT breaking ANY of the above restrictions.
For an open source real time audio (and MIDI) (routing) server take a look at http://jackaudio.org
gettimeofday() is the best for wall clock time. getrusage() is the best for CPU time, although it may not be portable. clock() is more portable for CPU timing, but it may have integer overflow.
This is pretty system-dependent. What OS are you using?
You can take a look at gettimeofday() for fairly high granularity. It should work ok if you just need to read time once in awhile.
SIGALRM/setitimer can be used to receive an interrupt periodically. Additionally, some systems have higher level libraries for dealing with time.
Is it possible to sleep for an amount of time that will be accurate to less than 100 microseconds on Windows CE? The less jitter the better - ideally we'd like single digit microsecond response times.
What we really want is a 5ms timer with very low jitter - although the Windows CE WaitFor[Single|Multiple]Objects and Sleep APIs work in units of milliseconds, we can't then correct for the sub-ms time our code may take to run, so the cycle would gradually drift.
If this is not possible, that information would be very helpful too.
This MSDN article has some code to set up a 500us timer interrupt in WinCE, so it's absolutely possible.
If you aren't locked into your version of WinCE, you might want to look into Tenasys, who claims to offer an RTOS running side-by-side with Windows on standard hardware.
I've also heard good things about QNX, but I haven't used their products either. I do not believe it is Windows compatible in any way, however.
It's not possible. It's not even possible on desktops. Typical operating systems simply don't function in this manner.
If what you need is something to fire precisely every 4 milliseconds or whatever you're out of luck. If what you really need is something to fire precisely 250 times every second that may be more doable. If you're in need of the latter I can suggest an approach.
If your need to sleep is not a battery/thread-yield issue and just a matter of accurate timing, you can use the "performancecounter" in Windows CE devices. On XScale and Qualcomm CPUs, this is the internal chip timer and has sub 1-ms granularity. On older OMAP and Samsung processors, the performancecounter API is passing through the 1ms system tick and has lots of jitter.
L.B.
To correct the jitter you need access to a high resolution timer.
The CPU you have may have one. If not, the interrupt controller may.
The Easiest way is to use a Linux with realtime and WINE your way into that library.
you want a Periodic Thread.
Take a look at this report from NIST.