I have a project with some soft real-time requirements. I have two processes (programs that I've written) that do some data acquisition. In either case, I need to continuously read in data that's coming in and process it.
The first program is heavily threaded, and the second one uses a library which should be threaded, but I have no clue what's going on under the hood. Each program is executed by the user and (by default) I see each with a priority of 20 and a nice value of 0. Each program uses roughly 30% of the CPU.
As it stands, both processes have to contended with a few background processes, and I want to give my two programs the best shot at the CPU as possible. My main issue is that I have a device that I talk to that has a 64 byte hardware buffer, and if I don't read from it in time, I get an overflow. I have noted this condition occurring once every 2-3 hours of run time.
Based on my research (http://oreilly.com/catalog/linuxkernel/chapter/ch10.html) there appear to be three ways of playing around with the priority:
Set the nice value to a lower number, and therefore give each process more priority. I can do this without any modification to my code (or use the system call) using the nice command.
Use sched_setscheduler() for the entire process to a particular scheduling policy.
Use pthread_setschedparam() to individually set each pthread.
I have run into the following roadblocks:
Say I go with choice 3, how do I prevent lower priority threads from being starved? Is there also a way to ensure that shared locks cause lower priority threads to be promoted to a higher priority? Say I have a thread that's real-time, SCHED_RR and it shared a lock with a default, SCHED_OTHER thread. When the SCHED_OTHER thread gets the lock, I want it to execute # higher priority to free the lock. How do I ensure this?
If a thread of SCHED_RR creates another thread, is the new thread automatically SCHED_RR, or do I need to specify this? What if I have a process that I have set to SCHED_RR, do all its threads automatically follow this policy? What if a process of SCHED_RR spawns a child process, is it too automatically SCHED_RR?
Does any of this matter given that the code only uses up 60% of the CPU? Or are there still issues with the CPU being shared with background processes that I should be concerned with and could be caused my buffer overflows?
Sorry for the long winded question, but I felt it needed some background info. Thanks in advance for the help.
(1) pthread_mutex_setprioceiling
(2) A newly created thread inherits the schedule and priority of its creating thread unless it's thread attributes (e.g. pthread_attr_setschedparam / pthread_attr_setschedpolicy) are directed to do otherwise when you call pthread_create.
(3) Since you don't know what causes it now it is in fairness hard for anyone say with assurance.
Related
I have written code for two threads where is one is assigned priority 20 (lower) and another on 10 (higher). Upon executing my code, 70% of the time I get expected results i.e high_prio (With priority 10) thread executes first and then low_prio (With priority 20).
Why is my code not able to get 100 % correct result in all the executions? Is there any conceptual mistake that I am doing?
void *low_prio(){
Something here;
}
void *high_prio(){
Something here;
}
int main(){
Thread with priority 10 calls high_prio;
Thread with priority 20 calls low_prio;
return 0;
}
Is there any conceptual mistake that I am doing?
Yes — you have an incorrect expectation regarding what thread priorities do. Thread priorities are not meant to force one thread to execute before another thread.
In fact, in a scenario where there is no CPU contention (i.e. where there are always at least as many CPU cores available as there are threads that currently want to execute), thread priorities will have no effect at all -- because there would be no benefit to forcing a low-priority thread not to run when there is a CPU core available for it to run on. In this no-contention scenario, all of the threads will get to run simultaneously and continuously for as long as they want to.
The only time thread priorities may make a difference is when there is CPU contention -- i.e. there are more threads that want to run than there are CPU cores available to run them. At that point, the OS's thread-scheduler has to make a decision about which thread will get to run and which thread will have to wait for a while. In this instance, thread priorities can be used to indicate to the scheduler which thread it should prefer allow to run.
Note that it's even more complicated than that, however -- for example, in your posted program, both of your threads are calling printf() rather a lot, and printf() invokes I/O, which means that the thread may be temporarily put to sleep while the I/O (e.g. to your Terminal window, or to a file if you have redirected stdout to file) completes. And while that thread is sleeping, the thread-scheduler can take advantage of the now-available CPU core to let another thread run, even if that other thread is of lower priority. Later, when the I/O operation completes, your high-priority thread will be re-awoken and re-assigned to a CPU core (possibly "bumping" a low-priority thread off of that core in order to get it).
Note that inconsistent results are normal for multithreaded programs -- threads are inherently non-deterministic, since their execution patterns are determined by the thread-scheduler's decisions, which in turn are determined by lots of factors (e.g. what other programs are running on the computer at the time, the system clock's granularity, etc).
How does one implement a multithreaded single process model in linux fedora under c where a single scheduler is used on a "main" core reading i/o availability (ex. tcp/ip, udp) then having a single-thread-per-core (started at init), the "execution thread", parse the data then update a small amount of info update to shared memory space (it is my understanding pthreads share data under a single process).
I beleive my options are:
Pthreads or the linux OS scheduler
I have a naive model in mind consisting of starting a certain number of these execution threads a single scheduler thread.
What is the best solution one could think when I know that I can use this sort of model.
Completing Benoit's answer, in order to communicate between your master and your worker threads, you could use conditional variable. The workers do something like:
while (true)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(workQueueMutex);
while (workQueue.empty())
pthread_cond_wait(workQueueCond, workQueueMutex);
/* if we get were then (a) we have work (b) we hold workQueueMutex */
work = pop(workQueue);
pthread_mutex_unlock(workQueueMutex);
/* do work */
}
and the master:
/* I/O received */
pthread_mutex_lock(workQueueMutex);
push(workQueue, work);
pthread_cond_signal(workQueueCond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(workQueueMutex);
This would wake up one idle work to immediately process the request. If no worker is available, the work will be dequeued and processed later.
Modifying the Linux scheduler is quite a tough work. I would just forget about it. Pthread is usually prefered. If I understand well, you want to have one core dedicated to the control plan, and a pool of other cores dedicated to the data plan processing? Then create a pool of threads from your master thread and setup core affinity for these slave threads with pthread_setaffinity_np(...).
Indeed threads of a process share the same address-space, and global variables are accessible by any threads of that process.
It looks to me that you have a version of the producer-consumer problem with a single consumer aggregating the results of n producers. This is a pretty standard problem, so I definitely think that pthread is more than enough for you. You don't need to go and mess around with the scheduler.
As one of the answer's states, a thread safe queue like the one described here works nicely for this sort of issue. Your original idea of spawning a bunch of threads is a good idea. You seem to be worried that the ability of the threads to share global state will cause you problems. I don't think that this is an issue if you keep shared state to a minimum and use sane locking discipline. Sharing state is fine as long as you do so responsibly.
Finally, unless you really know what you're doing, I would advise against manually messing with thread affinity. Just spawn the threads and let the scheduler handle when and on what core a thread runs. The thing to optimize is the number of threads you use. One for each core may not actually be the fastest approach if other threads are running.
Generally speaking, this is more or less exactly what the posix select and linux specific epoll functions are for.
According to my question here I would like to use SCHED_RR with pthread_setschedparam for my threads in a Linux application. However, this has effects even on kernel modules which I currently cannot solve.
I have found http://www.icir.org/gregor/tools/pthread-scheduling.html which says that I could create my threads with PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS attribute, but I haven't found further information on this.
Will this work with (Angstrom) Linux, kernel version2.6.32? (How) will this affect the way my process competes with other processes? Would it be the way to have my processes compete with real time scheduling but other processes would not be affected?
(As I am using boost threads I cannot simply try this...)
Threads created with PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS will share the same kernel thread (
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads/2006-August/003674.html )
However, SCHED_RR must be run under a root-privileged process.
Round-Robin; threads whose contention scope is system
(PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM) are in real-time (RT) scheduling class if the
calling process has an effective user id of 0. These threads, if not
preempted by a higher priority thread, and if they do not yield or
block, will execute for a time period determined by the system.
SCHED_RR for threads that have a contention scope of process
(PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS) or whose calling process does not have an
effective user id of 0 is based on the TS scheduling class.
However, basing on your linked problem I think you are facing a deeper issue. Have you tried setting your kernel to be more "preemptive"? Preemption should allow the kernel to forcibly schedule out of running your process allowing for more responsive running of some kernel parts. This shouldn't affect IRQs though, maybe something disabled your IRQs?
Another thing I am thinking about is maybe that you are not fetching your SPI data fast enough and the buffor for your data in the kernel becomes full and hence the data loss. Try increasing those buffers also.
Suppose two processes (or threads) both call write on a pipe/socket/terminal whose buffer is full, thus blocking. Is there any guarantee as to who gets to write first when buffer space becomes available? Is it FIFO order? Globally, or within a given priority level, and ordered first by priority? Or is it completely random/indeterminate?
What about starved reads? Will the first to call read get the data when it becomes available?
I'm asking specifically on Linux and as far as I know POSIX has nothing to say about these issues, but I'd also be interested if I'm wrong on that and POSIX does mandate particular behaviors.
Within the kernel, the pipe_wait() function is used by both pipe readers and writers to block. This function uses the DEFINE_WAIT() macro to define a wait queue, which sets the .flags member of the wait queue to zero.
They are woken up with a call to wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(), which calls down to __wake_up_common(). You can see that if the .flags member does not have the WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE bit set (as in this case), then all waiters are unceremoniously made runnable.
The scheduler will then use its normal heuristics to pick the runnable processes to run next. In particular, a later waiter with a higher priority will get to go first - but note that if you have more than one processor core available, multiple waiters can start to run simultaneously, and which one actually gets to touch the pipe first depends entirely on which one manages to grab the pipe lock first.
Short answer:
Higher priority processes will likely get it first, but applications should not make assumptions on this behavior.
Additional info:
When data is available on a pipe/socket, a race condition can occur, in which a seemingly random process can grab the lock first. In general, higher priority processes will get the lock first, but this should not be depended on, as many other factors can contribute to this, such as the number of processor cores and active threads.
In general, user-level apps can assume that higher priority will ensure more frequent I/O access, but should not expect or assume consistent behavior defined beyond these generalities.
I have to develop an application that tries to emulate the executing flow of an embedded target. This target has 2 levels of priority : the highest one being preemptive on the lowest one. The low priority level is managed with a round-robin scheduler which gives 1ms of execution to each thread in turn.
My goal is to write a library that provide the thread_create, thread_start, and all the system calls that are available on my target and use POSIX functions to reproduce the behavior natively on a standard PC.
Thus, when an high priority thread executes, low priority threads should be suspended whatever they are doing at that very moment. It is to the responsibility of the low priority thread's implementation to ensure that it won't be perturbed.
I now it is usually unsafe to suspend a thread, which explains why I didn't find any "suspend(pid)" function.
I basically imagine two solutions to the problem :
-find a way to suspend the low priority threads when a high priority thread starts (and resume them when there is no more high priority activity)
-periodically call a very small "suspend_if_necessary" function everywhere in my low-priority code, and whenever an high priority must start, wait for all low-priority process to call that function and be suspended, execute as single high priority thread, then resume them all.
Even if it is not-so-clean, I quite like the second solution, but still have one problem : how to call the function everywhere without changing all my code?
I wonder if there is an easy way to doing that, somewhat like debugging code does : add a hook call at every line executed that checks for a flag and run some specific code when that flag changes?
I'd be very happy if there is an easy solution to that problem, since I really need to be representative with the behavior of the target execution flow...
Thanks in advance,
Goulou.
Unfortunately, it's not really possible to implement what you want with true threads - even if the high prio thread is restarted, it can take arbitrarily long before the high prio thread is scheduled back in and goes to suspend all the low priority threads. Moreover, there is no reliable way to determine whether the high priority thread is blocked or not using only POSIX threads; you could try tracking things manually, but this runs the risk of both false positives (the thread's blocked on something, but the low prio threads think it's running and suspend itself) and false negatives (you miss a resumed annotation, or there's lag between when the thread's actually resumed and when it marks itself as running).
If you want to implement a thread priority system with pure POSIX, one option is to not use threads, but rather use setcontext for cooperative multitasking. This would allow you to swap between threads at a user level. However you must explicitly yield the CPU in this case. It also doesn't help with blocking syscalls, which would then block all threads in your app; but since you're writing an emulator this might not be an issue.
You may also be able to swap threads using setcontext within a signal handler; I've not tested this case myself, but it could be worth a try scheduling using setcontext in a SIGALRM handler.
To suspend a thread, you sleep it. If you want to be able to wake it on command, sleep it using sigwait, which puts the thread to sleep until it gets a signal. You can send a specific thread a signal with pthread_kill (crazy name, but it actually just sends signals to a thread). This is a very fast way to sleep and wake up threads. 40x Faster than condition variables and very easy.