I am using microC to program pic16f877a to operate motors and solenoids.
I have some functions making motors move at different space times e.g. motor1 moves for 100ms, stops, moves again for 100ms etc. for 4 loops, motor2 for 200ms and so on. I want these functions to start at the same time.
Think about a robot when you want to move its right hand up and down every 200ms for a total 2 mins and its left hand up and down every 400ms for a total again 2 mins. This process should start at the same time.
So basically I want to start something like :
start:
solenoid1 runs functionQuarter(moves up-down every x time) total like 2 mins
solenoid2 runs functionHalf(moves up-down every 2x time) total like 2 mins
stop
Is it possible to do this with micro c for this pic and how can I call 2 or more functions to start at the same time?
Why do you think you need threads? You know exactly when an operation should occur, so perform that operation exactly at that time. All you need is an appropriate scheduling system that helps you keep track of the operations. Compared to threads, you don't have the problem of unexpected scheduling, probably lower latency, no need for inter-thread synchronization.
Consider this sketch:
// this task structure says at what time to set
// an output to a certain value
struct task {
time_type when;
output_type output;
value_type value;
};
struct task_queue {
struct task** tasks;
size_t count;
};
void task_queue_push(struct task_queue* q, struct task* t);
struct task* task_queue_front(struct task_queue* q);
struct task* task_queue_pop(struct task_queue* q);
Now, in a loop, you keep looking at the first element in the queue and just sleep() until the start of the next task. Of course, that means you need to keep those tasks sorted by their start time! If multiple tasks start at the same time, you need to run them both, the only limit to "at the same time" the the execution time of each task. If necessary, as part of handling one task, you can create one or more other tasks. As a variation, you can also use a callback instead of just the output and value infos that assume you want to set some digital outputs only.
There isn't any solution for the pic16 series (it is far too small) but there is FreeRtos, made specifically for microcontrollers and there is a port for PIC18 (and a few others) check out the supported device list
Although freeRTOS is "free" to obtain and to use in personal projects I would recommend you purchase one of their books to help with implementation. There is free API on their site and demo code as well. It would be easier to understand it with the book (please note I am not tied to freeRTOS in anyway, I used it in projects with atmel controllers and found it very easy to use)
with freeRTOS you create a task (you define your solenoid control function) and then you set the priority, the delay then start the kernel. It's actually really straightforward.
Again, this won't work with your specific chip pic16, but if you can try another one, freeRTOS is a very well known and a pretty easy solution
Related
I want to define timing in a for loop:
int count;
int forfunctime;
for(count=0;count<5;count++)
{
output_b(sutun[count]);
output_c(UC[count]);
delay_ms(1);
}
int count;
int forfunctime;
for(forfunctime=0;forfunctime<100;++forfunctime)
{
for(count=0;count<5;count++)
{
output_b(sutun[count]);
output_c(UC[count]);
delay_ms(1);
}
}
In the SECOND code I am able to get a delay using the MIPS instruction processing time by enclosing the for loop but is there a more precise way?
My goal is to set a time for the for loop.
edit: for those who will use this information later: While programming PIC, we use a for loop to scroll the row and column in matrix displays, but if we want to keep this loop active for a certain period of time, we need to use timers for this.
Since I dont't know which PIC you're using, I can't answer precisely to this question, but I can draw you the general map.
What you need is a timer. There are timers on almost every microcontroller. But it is very likely that you will have to manually program it, generally by settings some bits in memory. Here is an example on how to program a timer.
The first and most naive solution is to set one of your microcontroller's timer and read it's value each time you're out of your loop, like below :
setTimer(); //Your work, not a predifined function
while (readTimer() < yourTimeConstant){ //againt, your work, not a predifined function
for(count=0;count<5;count++){
output_b(sutun[count]);
output_c(UC[count]);
}
}
The second and cleaner solution would be to use events if your microcontroller supports them.
You can save the current time just before enter the loop and check if already passed 10 seconds at every loop iteration, but actually that isn't the best way to do that. If you're working on windows system check waitable timer objects, for linux check alarm
I want to run the for loop written in the first code for 10 seconds.
Microcontrollers generally provide timers that you can use instead of delay loops. Timers have at least two advantages: 1) they make it easy to wait a specific amount of time, and 2) unlike delay functions, they don't prevent the controller from doing other things. With a timer, you can pretty much say "let me know when 10 seconds have passed."
Check the docs for your particular chip to see what timers are available and how to use them, but here's a good overview of how to use timers on PIC controllers.
I am trying to develop a contiki piece of code in which I need to wait for three seconds for a transducer output. Although this may sound quite un-transducer like, at development time, I want to simulate the behavior at human readable speeds and hence I need to set the timer to say 3 seconds.
The contiki timer library is pretty well documented and has a good series of examples which mention the creation, setting and resetting of the timer. However, if I have code like the following:
timer_set(&transducerOutputWaitTimer);
bool if_blk_executed;
if(timer_expired(&&transducerOutputWaitTimer)){
if_blk_executed = true;
//do something
}
if(if_blk_executed)
printf("Sunrise");
else
printf("It is not dawned yet");
Now the expiry is not immediately triggered after the timer is set. So the if block is never executed. Effectively it will never dawn.
Now there are two ways in which I can get the system to wait. One, by adding a while loop on the timer like this:
while(!timer_expired(&&transducerOutputWaitTimer)){};
//do something
or
cpu_delay_usecs{mytimerdur_in_secs*10^6*};
//do something
I do not see that either approaches are elegant. While one wastes CPU cycles, the other enforces an unnecessarily large computation.
Is there any better way? I know that clock
Attached to this question are the following two:
How can I trigger one Contiki protothread from another? If I can do this, I can get the interrupt that causes the transducerOutput to invoke a process from which I can trigger the etimer and process events.
What exactly does the CPU delay mean? Does this mean that the entire CPU clock cycles get held back for the given duration? If yes, how are other processes running currently in the system affected?
Updates
Update 1: the while method did not work. The code possibly went into an infinite loop.
Update 2: I tried with a clock_delay(3*CLOCK_SECOND) approach after setting my timer. It worked. However, in this case, why do I need the timer method at all?
Update 3 (This changes the context of the answer, hence adding this comment as per the suggestion)
My Timer needs to be used outside a process in a different void function. In that case, I need to use the timer() library rather than the etimer (which is specific to a process. So how do I get my method to wait for the desired time in such cases?
There are several Contiki abstractions built on top of the timer library - there is usually no need to user the timer_t structures directly. Instead, there are event timers (struct etimer), which play well together with Contiki processes, and callback timers (struct ctimer), both of which internally use struct timer. For a less RAM hungry option with a more limited API there are second timers (struct stimer). Finally, there is a single real-time timer in the system (struct rtimer).
An example event timer usage: set and wait for 3 seconds:
static struct etimer timer;
etimer_set(&timer, 3 * CLOCK_SECOND);
PROCESS_WAIT_EVENT_UNTIL(etimer_expired(&timer));
How can I trigger one Contiki protothread from another?
There is process_poll - see the process API documentation for more examples.
What exactly does the CPU delay mean?
It's a form of busy waiting. Don't use the delay functions or other forms of busy waiting for delays longer than microseconds - not energy efficient, does not allow other processes to run, and in worst case the watchdog might expire.
We are using embedded C for the VxWorks real time operating system.
Currently, all of our UDP connections are started with TaskSpawn().
This routine creates and activates a new task with a specified
priority and options and returns a system-assigned ID.
We specify the task size, a priority, and pass in an entry point.
These are continuous connections, and thus every entry point contains an infinite loop where we delay before the next iteration.
Then I discovered period().
period spawns a task to call a function periodically.
Period sounds like what we should be using instead, but I can't find any information on when you would prefer this function over TaskSpawn. Period also doesn't allow specifying the task size or the priority, so how is it decided? Is the task size dynamic? What will the priority be?
There are also watchdogs.
Any task may create a watchdog timer and use it to run a specified
routine in the context of the system-clock ISR, after a specified
delay.
Again, this seems to be in line with the goal of processing data at a particular rate. Which do I choose when a task must continuously execute code at the same rate (i.e. in real time)?
What are the differences between these 3 methods?
Here is a little clarification:
taskSpawn(..) creates a task with which you're free to do anything with you like.
Watchdogs shall only be used to monitor time constraints. Remember that the callback of the watchdog is executed within the context of the system clock ISR which has many limitations (e.g. free stack size, never use blocking function calls in an ISR, ...). Additionally executing "a lot of code" in the system clock ISR slows down your entire system.
period(..) is intended to be a helper for the VxWorks shell and not to be used by a program.
With that being said your only option is to use taskSpawn(..) unless you're doing some very simple stuff in which case period(..) might be ok to use.
If you need to do things cyclically in a specific time frame you might look at timers or taskDelay(..) in combination with sysClkRateSet(..).
Another option is to create two tasks. One that is setting a semaphore after a specific time intervall and the other "worker" tasks waits for this semaphore to do something. With that approach you separate "timing" from "action" which proved to be benefitial according to my experience. You also might want to monitor excution time of the "worker" task by using a watchdog.
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 am trying to write a simple win32 console application in C to simulate stock price ticks, I need to specify the time interval so that every n milliseconds a new price is published.
The end goal is to write test data to a database and stress test an application which is supposed to react to new ticks and perform calcs.
My simple price server will be structured as follows
int main (void)
{
int n = 0;
//set interval to 1 millisecond
while (true) {
printf ("New price...\n");
// Publish price and write to database
SleepExecution (n);
}
return 0;
}
I have not been able to find an API call which will allow me to stop the execution of the above code for the arbitrary n milliseconds. Sleep looks to be the solution but I would prefer not to use it.
Are there any libraries you would recommend using or samples on the web I could draw inspiration from?
CreateWaitableTimer is great for running code periodically. Combined with timeBeginPeriod to increase the system timer rate, and turning up your thread priority so it wakes on time, you should have a solution that's 99.99% effective.
Suspending execution is an operating system-specific operation.
For MS Windows (Win 95 and after), use the function Sleep() where the parameter is the minimum rescheduling time in milliseconds.
For Linux, there are several ways, but int nanosleep(const struct timespec *req, struct timespec *rem); allows nanosecond precision for most uses. sleep() allows one second precision, so it probably isn't useful for your purposes.
I see that win32 was mentioned. To use Sleep(), the program can probably use a constant value, depending on the requirements, but if high consistency is required, then dynamically compute the delay based on how much longer it is until the next time a update is needed.