I am coding the communication between 2 DSPs through SPI. The start code is quite simple, DSP-1 is sending and DSP-2 is receiving (Of course, DSP-1 also receives but I don't care so far, vice versa for DSP-2)
That works fine. One thousand 16bit data were sent and received correctly.
However, when I add an random delay in DSP-1(master) side, I found DSP-2 begin to lost some data. It is confusing me that I didn't change anything at DSP-2 side for receiving and I am polling quite often.
So anyidea why the delay on sender's side might affect the receiver? (I double checked the DSP1 did send correct sequence.)
And I am thinking to convert to interrupt mechanism, will that solve this kind of issue for all?
my DSP2's polling code is:
for(;;) //my main program for receving
{
spi_xmit(data); //For sending, not care so far
while(SpiaRegs.SPIFFRX.bit.RXFFST == 0) {} //polling
while(SpiaRegs.SPIFFRX.bit.RXFFST != 0)
{
rdata[seq] = SpiaRegs.SPIRXBUF;
seq++;
}
if(seq>1000) break;
}
Related
I'm learning c and messing around with xcb lib (instead of X11) on a raspberry pi4.
The problem is that when implementing the events loop with xcb_poll_for_event instead of xcb_wait_for_event, one core of four is 100% full. What am I doing wrong? And is there any benefit of using wait_for_event (blocking way) instead of xcb_poll_for_event(non blocking)?
The goal is to create a window where the user interact with keyboard/mouse/gamepad on objects, like a game. Can anyone give a hand?
The relevant code is:
int window_loop_test(xcb_connection_t *connection, Display *display){
/* window loop non blocked waiting for events */
int running = 1;
while (running) {
xcb_generic_event_t *event = xcb_poll_for_event(connection);
if (event) {
switch (event->response_type & ~0x80) {
case XCB_EXPOSE: {
// TODO
break;
}
case XCB_KEY_PRESS: {
/* Quit on 'q' key press */
/* write key pressed on console */
const xcb_key_press_event_t *press =
(xcb_key_press_event_t *)event;
XKeyEvent keyev;
keyev.display = display;
keyev.keycode = press->detail;
keyev.state = press->state;
char key[32];
XLookupString(&keyev, key, sizeof(key) - 1, NULL, NULL);
// key[len] = 0;
printf("Key pressed: %s\n", key);
printf("Mod state: %d\n", keyev.state);
if (*key == 'q')
running = 0;
break;
}
}
free(event);
}
}
return 0;
}
Polling and waiting each have their advantages and are good for different situations. Neither is "wrong" per se, but you need to use the correct one for your specific use case.
xcb_wait_for_event(connection) is a blocking call. The call will not return until an event is available, and the return value is is that event (unless an error occurs). It is good for situations where you only want the thread to respond to events, but otherwise not do anything. In that case, there is no need to spend CPU resources when no events are coming in.
xcb_poll_for_event(connection) is a non-blocking call. The call always returns immediately, but the result will be NULL if no event is available. It is good for situations where you want the thread to be able to do useful work even if no events are coming in. As you found out, it's not good if the thread only needs to respond to events, as it can consume CPU resources unnecessarily.
You mention that your goal is to create a game or something similar. Given that there are many ways to architect a game, either function can be suitable. But there are a couple of basic things to keep in mind that will determine which function you want to use. There may be other considerations as well, but this will give you an idea of what to look out for.
First of all, is your input system running on the same thread as other systems (simulation, rendering, etc)? If so, it's probably important to keep that thread available for work other than waiting for input events. In this case, xcb_poll_for_event() is almost required, otherwise your thread will be blocked until an event comes in. However, if your input system is on its own thread that doesn't block your other threads, it may be acceptable to use xcb_wait_for_event() and let that thread sleep when no events are coming in.
The second consideration is how quickly you need to respond to input events. There's often a delay in waking up a thread, so if fast response times are important you'll want to avoid letting the thread sleep in the first place. Again, xcb_poll_for_event() will be your friend in this case. If response times are not critical, xcb_wait_for_events() is an option.
I have an issue of an if statement not passing whilst my system gatt connection is not made.
Context
I have a BLE system using a NRF52840-dk board programmed in C. I also have a mobile application which, communicates with this board via a Gatt connection. I have a single service with a single characteristic. I write to this characteristic from my mobile application and, from this do some processing. At the moment I can send over a timestamp and begin storing data. However, I need to then send data back to my mobile device by this connection.
So what I have is a command to be sent from the phone to ask for some data. This should then send data back to the phone by changing the characteristic value.
Before I can change the value I need to see if the command has been issued. However, due to the priorities and constraints of the device I need to do this processing in the main function not in the BLE interrupt that I have done my time stamping in. This is due to the data I will be transmitting eventually will be large.
My issue however is, I receive the command to send some data back to the phone and update a global int value (changed from 0 to 1). Then in my main loop test this value and, if it is 1 write to the terminal and change the value back. I would then use this point of the code to run a function to send the data.
But this statement does not pass.
This is my main loop code
if(GATT_CONNECTED == false)//This works!
{
//Do some functions here
}
else if (GATT_CONNECTED == true)// GATT_CONNECTED = true
{
NRF_LOG_INFO("Test1 passed");//Testing variable this does not print
if(main_test == 1)
{
NRF_LOG_INFO("Test2 passed");//This does not print either irrelevant of value
main_test = 0;//False
}
idle_state_handle();
}
I don't know if the issue is the way I have defined my variable or due to interrupt priorities or something like that. But, when my Gatt connection is made the loop of (GATT_CONNECTED == true) does not seem to process.
My variable is defined in another file where my GATT connection is handled. The GATT connected variable is handled in main. my main_test variable is defined in another c file as int main_test = 0;. In the header declared as extern int main_test;.
I know the GATT_CONNECTED variable works as I have code in it that only runs when my gatt is not connected. I have omitted it for simplicity.
Any ideas,
Thanks
Ps Hope you are all keeping well and, safe
Edit
Added code for simplicity
main.c
bool GATT_CONNECTED = false;
int main(void)
{
Init_Routine();
while(1)
{
Process_data();//This runs if the gatt is not connected if statement inside
if(GATT_CONNECTED == true)//This does not run true when the gatt is connected
{
NRF_LOG_INFO("check gatt connectedpassed");//Testing variable.
nrf_gpio_pin_set(LED_4);//Turn an LED on once led 4 does not work
}
idle_state_handle();
}
}
I have a piece of MPI C code which looks something like the following:
for(i=0;i<NTask;i++)
{
got_initial_bit_of_data[i]=0;
if(need_to_communicate with i)
MPI_ISend(&bit_of_pre_data_for_i,1,MPI_INT,partner,0,MPI_COMM_WORLD,&pre_requests[i]);
}
while(1)
{
MPI_Testsome(NTask,pre_requests,&ndone,idxs,MPI_STATUSES_IGNORE)
if(ndone)
{
for(i=0;i<ndone;i++)
{
MPI_ISend(&the_main_block_of_data_for_i,size_of_block,MPI_BYTE,idxs[i],1,MPI_COMM_WORLD,&main_requests[idxs[i]]);
}
}
//Other stuff that doesn't matter
MPI_IProbe(MPI_ANY_SOURCE,0,MPI_COMM_WORLD,&flag,&status);
if(!flag)
{
MPI_IProbe(MPI_ANY_SOURCE,1,MPI_COMM_WORLD,&flag,&status);
}
if(flag)
{
//Receiving the initial little bit of data
if(status.MPI_TAG==0)
{
//Location 1
got_initial_bit_of_data[status.MPI_SOURCE]=1;
MPI_Recv(&useful_location,1,MPI_INT,status.MPI_SOURCE,MPI_STATUS_IGNORE);
}
//Receiving the main bit of data
else if(status.MPI_TAG==1)
{
//Location 2
if(got_initial_bit_of_data[status.MPI_SOURCE]!=1)
//Something has gone horribly wrong...
//Receive the main bit of data here...
}
}
}
Obviously I've omitted lots of details because the full code is several hundreds of lines long. If something I've done looks a bit odd, it's probably because it is because of something in the omitted code block.
The idea is that at the start each processor sends an "announcement" message to those processors it wants to talk to. When it detects that those processors have received this message (that is when MPI_Testsome indicates the "announcement" MPI_Isend is complete), it should send a big chunk of data.
From the point of view of a processor receiving data, it should first receive the announcement message at location 1, which will cause MPI_Testsome to indicate that the Isend is complete and send the big chunk of data. The receiving processor should then receive the main block of data at location 2. Following this logic, it should be impossible to reach location 2 with got_initial_bit_of_data[status.MPI_SOURCE] being 0, but this is precisely what does happen very occasionally and I'd like to work out why.
Either I've got the logic of the code wrong, or there's some subtlety of IProbe and Testsome that I'm missing.
I'm also exiting and re-entering this entire block of code, with different processors moving in and out at different points in time, but only when all their ISends have been processed (as determined by Testsome saying that they're completed).
If the above explanation doesn't make any sense, what I want to know is are there any circumstances under which Testsome claim that an ISend is completed without the matching receive completing (or even starting)? Is a processor making a call to IProbe enough to cause Testsome to consider a request completed for instance?
If the above explanation doesn't make any sense, what I want to know is are there any circumstances under which Testsome claim that an ISend is completed without the matching receive completing (or even starting)? Is a processor making a call to IProbe enough to cause Testsome to consider a request completed for instance?
All that MPI_Testsome guarantees is that the buffer you were using from ISend is no longer needed by MPI. If you want to guarantee that the recipient has started the receive, use the synchronous form, ISSend.
I'm trying to acquire data from an MCU, save them to a file and plot them. The code functions properly for some time, then just hangs randomly (sometimes after 1 sec, sometimes after 1 minute ...!). Also the serialport timeouts are not respected, i.e. I'm not receiving any timeout exceptions. I'm using an FTDI232RL chip. The only time I get a timeout exception is when I unplug it while the program is running.
Code:
private: System::Void START_Click(System::Object^ sender, System::EventArgs^ e) {
seconds=0;
minutes=0;
hours=0;
days=0;
t=0;
if((this->comboBox4->Text == String::Empty)||(this->textBox2->Text == String::Empty)||(this->textBox3->Text == String::Empty)){
this->textBox1->Text="please select port, save file directory and logging interval";
timer1->Enabled=false;
}
else{ // start assigning
w=Convert::ToDouble(this->textBox3->Text);
double q=fmod(w*1000,10);
if(q!=0){
MessageBox::Show("The logging interval must be a multiple of 0.01s");
}
else{
period=static_cast<int>(w*1000);
this->interval->Interval = period;
try{ // first make sure port isn't busy/open
if(!this->serialPort1->IsOpen){
// select the port whose name is in comboBox4 (select port)
this->serialPort1->PortName=this->comboBox4->Text;
//open the port
this->serialPort1->Open();
this->serialPort1->ReadTimeout = period+1;
this->serialPort1->WriteTimeout = period+1;
String^ name_ = this->serialPort1->PortName;
START=gcnew String("S");
this->textBox1->Text="Logging started";
timer1->Enabled=true;
interval->Enabled=true;
myStream=new ofstream(directory,ios::out);
*myStream<<"time(ms);ADC1;ADC2;ADC3;ADC4;ADC5;ADC6;ADC7;ADC8;";
*myStream<<endl;
chart1->Series["ADC1"]->Points->Clear();
chart1->Series["ADC2"]->Points->Clear();
chart1->Series["ADC3"]->Points->Clear();
chart1->Series["ADC4"]->Points->Clear();
chart1->Series["ADC5"]->Points->Clear();
chart1->Series["ADC6"]->Points->Clear();
chart1->Series["ADC7"]->Points->Clear();
chart1->Series["ADC8"]->Points->Clear();
backgroundWorker1->RunWorkerAsync();
}
else
{
this->textBox1->Text="Warning: port is busy or isn't open";
timer1->Enabled=false;
interval->Enabled=false;
}
}
catch(UnauthorizedAccessException^)
{
this->textBox1->Text="Unauthorized access";
timer1->Enabled=false;
interval->Enabled=false;
}
}
}
}
private: System::Void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(System::Object^ sender, System::ComponentModel::DoWorkEventArgs^ e) {
while(!backgroundWorker1->CancellationPending){
if(backgroundWorker1->CancellationPending){
e->Cancel=true;
return;
}
t+=period;
if(t<10*period){
this->chart1->ChartAreas["ChartArea1"]->AxisX->Minimum=0;
this->chart1->ChartAreas["ChartArea1"]->AxisX->Maximum=t+10*period;
}
else {
this->chart1->ChartAreas["ChartArea1"]->AxisX->Minimum=t-10*period;
this->chart1->ChartAreas["ChartArea1"]->AxisX->Maximum=t+10*period;
}
*myStream<<t<<";";
for (int n=0;n<8;n++){
adc_array[n]= this->serialPort1->ReadByte();
}
Array::Copy(adc_array,ADC,8);
for(int f=0; f<8; f++){
*myStream<<ADC[f]<<";";
}
*myStream<<endl;
backgroundWorker1->ReportProgress(t);
}
}
private: System::Void backgroundWorker1_ProgressChanged(System::Object^ sender, System::ComponentModel::ProgressChangedEventArgs^ e) {
chart1->Series["ADC1"]->Points->AddXY(t,ADC[0]);
chart1->Series["ADC2"]->Points->AddXY(t,ADC[1]);
chart1->Series["ADC3"]->Points->AddXY(t,ADC[2]);
chart1->Series["ADC4"]->Points->AddXY(t,ADC[3]);
chart1->Series["ADC5"]->Points->AddXY(t,ADC[4]);
chart1->Series["ADC6"]->Points->AddXY(t,ADC[5]);
chart1->Series["ADC7"]->Points->AddXY(t,ADC[6]);
chart1->Series["ADC8"]->Points->AddXY(t,ADC[7]);
}
the user is allowed to define intervals in seconds for data acquisition (in the code this interval is w after conversion to double). In this case, the program sends a pulse to the MCU requesting a new data transmission. So far, I have been testing this for 1 second intervals (note, during each interval the MCU sends 8 frames, each representing an ADC). However, I need to get this to run for 10ms intervals at some point. Will this be possible? Any idea on how to solve the few problems I mentioned at the beginning?
Thanks in advance
UPDATE
Just to give you an idea of what's happening:
I commented the charting part and ran the program for about 5 minutes, with a reading interval of 1s. So I expected to get around 5x60=300 values in the output file, but I only got 39 (i.e. starting from 1s till 39s). The program was still running, but the data were not getting stored anymore.
Testing was done in release mode and not debug mode. In debug mode, setting a break point under serialport->readbyte(), does not reproduce the problem. My guess is it's a timing issue between program and MCU.
You are making several standard mistakes. First off, do NOT unplug the cable when the port is opened. Many USB emulators don't know how to deal with that, the FTDI driver is particularly notorious about that. They just make the port disappear while it is in use, this invariably gives code that uses the port a severe heart attack. An uncatchable exception is common.
Secondly, you are accessing properties of a class that is not thread-safe in a worker thread. The Chart control was made to be used only in a UI thread, accessing the ChartAreas property in a worker is going to buy you a lot of misery. Getting an InvalidOperationException is pretty typical when you violate threading requirements, it is however not consistently implemented. Nastiness includes random AccessViolationExceptions, corrupted data and deadlock.
Third, you are setting completely unrealistic goals. Pursuing an update every 10 milliseconds is pointless, the human eye cannot perceive that. Anything past 50 milliseconds just turns into a blur. Something that is taken advantage of when you watch a movie in the cinema, it displays at 24 frames per second. The failure mode for that is unpleasant as well, you'll eventually reach a point where you are pummeling the UI thread (or the Chart control) with more updates than it can process. The side effect is that the UI stops painting itself, it is too busy trying to keep up with the deluge of invoke requests. And the amount of memory your program consumes keeps building, the update queue grows without bounds. That does eventually end with an OOM exception, it takes a while to consume 2 jiggabytes however. You will need to prevent this from happening, you need to throttle the rate at which you invoke. A simple thread-safe counter can take care of that.
Forth, you are accessing the data you gather in more than one thread without taking care of thread-safety. The ADC array content is being changed by the worker while the UI thread is reading it. Various amounts of misery from that, bad data at a minimum. A simply workaround is to pass a copy of the data to the ReportProgress method. In general, address these kind of threading problems by using pull instead of push. Get rid of the fire-hose problem by having the UI thread pace the requests instead of trying to have the UI thread keep up.
We are working on a C language application which is simple RTSP/RTP client to record video from Axis a number of Cameras. We launch a pthread for each of the camera which establishes the RTP session and begin to record the packets captured using the recvfrom() call.
A single camera single pthread records fine for well over a day without issues.
But testing with more cameras available,about 25(so 25 pthreads), the recording to file goes fine for like 15 to 20 mins and then the recording just stops. The application still keeps running. Its been over a month and a half we have been trying with varied implementations but nothing seems to help. Please provide suggestions.
We are using CentOS 5 platform
Define "record" Does that mean write data to a file? How do you control access to the file?
You can't have several threads all trying to write at the exact same time. So the comment by Alon seems to be pertinent. Your write access control machanism has problems.
void *IPThread(void *ptr)
{
//Establish RTSP session
//Bind to RTP ports(video)
//Increase Socket buffer size to 625KB
record_fd=open(record_name, O_CREAT|O_RDWR|O_TRUNC, 0777);
while(1)
{
if(poll(RTP/RTCP ports)) //a timeout value of 1
{
if(RTCP event)
RTCPhandler();
if(RTP event)
{
recvfrom(); //the normal socket api recvfrom
WritePacketToFile(record_fd)
{
//Create new record_fd after 100MB
}
}
}
}
}
even if it is alright to stick to the single threaded implementation why is the multithreaded approach behaving such a way(not recording after ~15 mins)..?