I've written many C programs for microcontrollers but never one that runs on an OS like linux. How does linux decide how much processing time to give my application? Is there something I need to do when I have idle time to tell the OS to go do something else and come back to me later so that other processes can get time to run as well? Or does the OS just do that automatically?
Edit: Adding More Detail
My c program has a task scheduler. Some tasks run every 100ms, some run every 50 ms and so on. In my main program loop i call ProcessTasks which checks if any tasks are ready to run, if none are ready it calls an idle function. The idle function does nothing but it's there so that I could toggle a GPIO pin and monitor idle time with an O'scope... or something if I so desired. So maybe I should call sched_yield() in this idle function???
How does linux decide how much processing time to give my application
Each scheduler makes up its own mind. Some reward you for not using up your share, some roll dices trying to predict what you'll do etc. In my opinion you can just consider it magic. After we enter the loop, the scheduler magically decides our time is up etc.
Is there something I need to do when I have idle time to tell the OS
to go do something else
You might call sched_yield. I've never called it, nor do I know of any reasons why one would want to. The manual does say it could improve performance though.
Or does the OS just do that automatically
It most certainly does. That's why they call it "preemptive" multitasking.
It depends why and how you have "idle time". Any call to a blocking I/O function, waiting on a mutex or sleeping will automatically deschedule your thread and let the OS get on with something else. Only something like a busy loop would be a problem, but that shouldn't appear in your design in any case.
Your program should really only have one central "infinite loop". If there's any chance that the loop body "runs out of work", then it would be best if you could make the loop perform one of the above system functions which would make all the niceness appear automatically. For example, if your central loop is an epoll_wait and all your I/O, timers and signals are handled by epoll, call the function with a timeout of -1 to make it sleep if there's nothing to do. (By contrast, calling it with a timeout of 0 would make it busy-loop – bad!).
The other answers IMO are going into too much detail. The simple thing to do is:
while (1){
if (iHaveWorkToDo()){
doWork();
} else {
sleep(amountOfTimeToWaitBeforeNextCheck);
}
}
Note: this is the simple solution which is useful in a single-threaded application or like your case where you dont have anything to do for a specified amount of time; just to get something decent working. The other thing about this is that sleep will call whatever yield function the os prefers, so in that sense it is better than an os specific yield call.
If you want to go for high performance, you should be waiting on events.
If you have your own events it will be something like follows:
Lock *l;
ConditionVariable *cv;
while (1){
l->acquire();
if (iHaveWorkToDo()){
doWork();
} else {
cv->wait(lock);
}
l->release();
}
In a networking type situation it will be more like:
while (1){
int result = select(fd_max+1, ¤tSocketSet, NULL, NULL, NULL);
process_result();
}
Related
I asked this question on EE forum. You guys on StackOverflow know more about coding than we do on EE so maybe you can give more detail information about this :)
When I learned about micrcontrollers, teachers taught me to always end the code with while(1); with no code inside that loop.
This was to be sure that the software get "stuck" to keep interruption working. When I asked them if it was possible to put some code in this infinite loop, they told me it was a bad idea. Knowing that, I now try my best to keep this loop empty.
I now need to implement a finite state machine in a microcontroller. At first view, it seems that that code belong in this loop. That makes coding easier.
Is that a good idea? What are the pros and cons?
This is what I plan to do :
void main(void)
{
// init phase
while(1)
{
switch(current_State)
{
case 1:
if(...)
{
current_State = 2;
}
else(...)
{
current_State = 3;
}
else
current_State = 4;
break;
case 2:
if(...)
{
current_State = 3;
}
else(...)
{
current_State = 1;
}
else
current_State = 5;
break;
}
}
Instead of:
void main(void)
{
// init phase
while(1);
}
And manage the FSM with interrupt
It is like saying return all functions in one place, or other habits. There is one type of design where you might want to do this, one that is purely interrupt/event based. There are products, that go completely the other way, polled and not even driven. And anything in between.
What matters is doing your system engineering, thats it, end of story. Interrupts add complication and risk, they have a higher price than not using them. Automatically making any design interrupt driven is automatically a bad decision, simply means there was no effort put into the design, the requirements the risks, etc.
Ideally you want most of your code in the main loop, you want your interrupts lean and mean in order to keep the latency down for other time critical tasks. Not all MCUs have a complicated interrupt priority system that would allow you to burn a lot of time or have all of your application in handlers. Inputs into your system engineering, may help choose the mcu, but here again you are adding risk.
You have to ask yourself what are the tasks your mcu has to do, what if any latency is there for each task from when an event happens until they have to start responding and until they have to finish, per event/task what if any portion of it can be deferred. Can any be interrupted while doing the task, can there be a gap in time. All the questions you would do for a hardware design, or cpld or fpga design. except you have real parallelism there.
What you are likely to end up with in real world solutions are some portion in interrupt handlers and some portion in the main (infinite) loop. The main loop polling breadcrumbs left by the interrupts and/or directly polling status registers to know what to do during the loop. If/when you get to where you need to be real time you can still use the main super loop, your real time response comes from the possible paths through the loop and the worst case time for any of those paths.
Most of the time you are not going to need to do this much work. Maybe some interrupts, maybe some polling, and a main loop doing some percentage of the work.
As you should know from the EE world if a teacher/other says there is one and only one way to do something and everything else is by definition wrong...Time to find a new teacher and or pretend to drink the kool-aid, pass the class and move on with your life. Also note that the classroom experience is not real world. There are so many things that can go wrong with MCU development, that you are really in a controlled sandbox with ideally only a few variables you can play with so that you dont have spend years to try to get through a few month class. Some percentage of the rules they state in class are to get you through the class and/or to get the teacher through the class, easier to grade papers if you tell folks a function cant be bigger than X or no gotos or whatever. First thing you should do when the class is over or add to your lifetime bucket list, is to question all of these rules. Research and try on your own, fall into the traps and dig out.
When doing embedded programming, one commonly used idiom is to use a "super loop" - an infinite loop that begins after initialization is complete that dispatches the separate components of your program as they need to run. Under this paradigm, you could run the finite state machine within the super loop as you're suggesting, and continue to run the hardware management functions from the interrupt context as it sounds like you're already doing. One of the disadvantages to doing this is that your processor will always be in a high power draw state - since you're always running that loop, the processor can never go to sleep. This would actually also be a problem in any of the code you had written however - even an empty infinite while loop will keep the processor running. The solution to this is usually to end your while loop with a series of instructions to put the processor into a low power state (completely architecture dependent) that will wake it when an interrupt comes through to be processed. If there are things happening in the FSM that are not driven by any interrupts, a normally used approach to keep the processor waking up at periodic intervals is to initialize a timer to interrupt on a regular basis to cause your main loop to continue execution.
One other thing to note, if you were previously executing all of your code from the interrupt context - interrupt service routines (ISRs) really should be as short as possible, because they literally "interrupt" the main execution of the program, which may cause unintended side effects if they take too long. A normal way to handle this is to have handlers in your super loop that are just signalled to by the ISR, so that the bulk of whatever processing that needs to be done is done in the main context when there is time, rather than interrupting a potentially time critical section of your main context.
What should you implement is your choice and debugging easiness of your code.
There are times that it will be right to use the while(1); statement at the end of the code if your uC will handle interrupts completely (ISR). While at some other application the uC will be used with a code inside an infinite loop (called a polling method):
while(1)
{
//code here;
}
And at some other application, you might mix the ISR method with the polling method.
When said 'debugging easiness', using only ISR methods (putting the while(1); statement at the end), will give you hard time debugging your code since when triggering an interrupt event the debugger of choice will not give you a step by step event register reading and following. Also, please note that writing a completely ISR code is not recommended since ISR events should do minimal coding (such as increment a counter, raise/clear a flag, e.g.) and being able to exit swiftly.
It belongs in one thread that executes it in response to input messages from a producer-consumer queue. All the interrupts etc. fire input to the queue and the thread processes them through its FSM serially.
It's the only way I've found to avoid undebuggable messes whilst retaining the low latencty and efficient CPU use of interrupt-driven I/O.
'while(1);' UGH!
What it does mean? I saw below part of a code in embedded c program.I know this is a infinite loop, but for what purpose this part of a code is using in embedded c.
while(1)
{
}
Thanks..
This construct is used for two different purposes.
When you detect an error condition or the termination of your task you have to put the micro-controller in a definit state. The while(1) { } construct stalls further execution until the (watchdog) reset restarts the micro-controller. As krambo mentions in his comment this can be used to attach a JTAG debugger to examine the state of the micro-controller, variables, registers, and so on.
You can implement all the logic in interrupt handler. The main function performs the initialization and goes sleeping. While the main function can "sleep" the CPU can't. It just loops forever. Some micro-controller supports low-energy modes. This would be an alternative.
All embedded systems need an endless loop, because they must continue to execute for as long as the power is on. It doesn't make any sense for an embedded program to just execute and then return, as that would leave the processor dead and idle. This is likely the sole purpose of that loop.
I would guess your code comes from a bare metal microcontroller application, so you can safely disregard all PC programmer comments about sleeping and multi-threading; for a microcontroller application it doesn't make any sense not to consume 100% of the CPU, since nobody else is using it but you.
If you sleep on an embedded system you put the actual microcontroller hardware to sleep, if it supports it. You do so to save power, not to save CPU cycles.
Some operating systems, like uC/OS, require an idle task to run when no other task is running. This would be at the lowest priority and would be preempted by a timer (scheduler) tick if it ever got a chance to run. The case you describe could be such a task.
I am writing a Gif animator in C.
I have two threads running in parallel, both . The first allows the user to alter the speed of the animation. The second draws the current frame, and then calls Sleep(Constant * 100 / CurrentSpeed), where CurrentSpeed is a percentage amount, ranging from 1 to 200.
The problem is that if you quickly change the speed from 100%, to 1%, and then back to the first, the second thread will execute the following:
Sleep(Constant * 100)
This will draw frame A, wait many seconds (although the speed was changed by the user), and only then draw B and the following frames in the default speed.
It seems to me that Sleep is a poor choice of mine in this case. What can I do to solve this problem?
EDIT:
The code I currently have (Simplified):
while (1) {
InvalidateRect(Handle, &ImageRect, FALSE);
if (shouldDispose) {
break;
}
if (DelayTime)
Sleep(DelayTime * 100 / CurrentSpeed);
SelectNextImage();
}
Instead of calling Sleep() with the desired frame rate, why don't you call it with a constant interval of 1 ms, for example, and use a variable as a counter?
For example, let C be a global variable (counter) which is loaded with a number of 'ticks' of 1ms. Then, write the loop:
while(1) { //Main loop of the player thread
if (C > 0) C--;
if (C == 0) nextframe(); //if counter reaches 0, load next frame.
Sleep(1);
}
The control thread would load C with a number of 1ms ticks (i.e. frame rate), and the player thread will never be stopped beyond 1 ms. The use of 1ms as the base rate is arbitrary. Use the minimum time that allows you the maximum frame rate, in order to load CPU the less as possible.
EDIT
After some hot comments (arguing is good after all), I'd like to point out that this solution is sub-optimal, i.e., it doesn't use any OS mechanism for signaling threads or any other API for preventing the thread from wasting CPU time. The solution shown here is generic: it may be used in any system (even in embedded systems without any running OS. But above all, it is based on the original code posted by the user that asked the question: using Sleep(), how can I achieve my purpose. I give him my humble answer. Anyway, I encourage other people to write sample code using the appropriate API for achieving the same goal. With no hard feelings, special thanks to Martin James.
Find a synchro API on your OS that allows a wait with a timeout, eg. WaitForSingleObject() on Windows. If you want to change the delay, change the timeout and signal the event upon which the WFSO is waiting to make it return 'early' and restart the wait with the new timeout.
Polling with Sleep(1) loops is rarely justifiable.
Create a waitable timer. When you set the timer, you can specify a callback function that will run in the setting thread's context. This means you can do it with two threads, but it actually works just fine with only a single thread as well.
The main advantage of a waitable timer is, however, that it is more accurate and more reliable than Sleep. A timer is conceptually much different from Sleep insofar as Sleep only gives up control and the scheduler marks the thread as ready to run when the time is up and when the scheduler runs anyway. It doesn't do anything beyond that. Which means that the thread will eventually be scheduled to run again, like any other thread that is ready.
A thread that is waiting on a timer (or other waitable object) causes the scheduler to run when the timer is up and has its priority temporarily boosted. It therefore runs not only more reliably and more closely to the desired time, but also earlier than all other threads with the same base priority. Which does not give a realtime guarantee but at least gives a sort of "soft guarantee".
If you still want to use Sleep, use SleepEx instead which you can alert, either by queueing an APC, or by calling the undocumented NtAlertThread function.
In any case, Sleep is troublesome not only because of being unreliable, but also because it bases on the granularity of the system-wide timer. Which you can, of course, set to as low as 1ms (or less on some systems), but that will cause a lot of unnecessary interrupts.
How would be the correct way to prevent a soft lockup/unresponsiveness in a long running while loop in a C program?
(dmesg is reporting a soft lockup)
Pseudo code is like this:
while( worktodo ) {
worktodo = doWork();
}
My code is of course way more complex, and also includes a printf statement which gets executed once a second to report progress, but the problem is, the program ceases to respond to ctrl+c at this point.
Things I've tried which do work (but I want an alternative):
doing printf every loop iteration (don't know why, but the program becomes responsive again that way (???)) - wastes a lot of performance due to unneeded printf calls (each doWork() call does not take very long)
using sleep/usleep/... - also seems like a waste of (processing-)time to me, as the whole program will already be running several hours at full speed
What I'm thinking about is some kind of process_waiting_events() function or the like, and normal signals seem to be working fine as I can use kill on a different shell to stop the program.
Additional background info: I'm using GWAN and my code is running inside the main.c "maintenance script", which seems to be running in the main thread as far as I can tell.
Thank you very much.
P.S.: Yes I did check all other threads I found regarding soft lockups, but they all seem to ask about why soft lockups occur, while I know the why and want to have a way of preventing them.
P.P.S.: Optimizing the program (making it run shorter) is not really a solution, as I'm processing a 29GB bz2 file which extracts to about 400GB xml, at the speed of about 10-40MB per second on a single thread, so even at max speed I would be bound by I/O and still have it running for several hours.
While the posed answer using threads might possibly be an option, it would in reality just shift the problem to a different thread. My solution after all was using
sleep(0)
Also tested sched_yield / pthread_yield, both of which didn't really help. Unfortunately I've been unable to find a good resource which documents sleep(0) in linux, but for windows the documentation states that using a value of 0 lets the thread yield it's remaining part of the current cpu slice.
It turns out that sleep(0) is most probably relying on what is called timer slack in linux - an article about this can be found here: http://lwn.net/Articles/463357/
Another possibility is using nanosleep(&(struct timespec){0}, NULL) which seems to not necessarily rely on timer slack - linux man pages for nanosleep state that if the requested interval is below clock granularity, it will be rounded up to clock granularity, which on linux depends on CLOCK_MONOTONIC according to the man pages. Thus, a value of 0 nanoseconds is perfectly valid and should always work, as clock granularity can never be 0.
Hope this helps someone else as well ;)
Your scenario is not really a soft lock up, it is a process is busy doing something.
How about this pseudo code:
void workerThread()
{
while(workToDo)
{
if(threadSignalled)
break;
workToDo = DoWork()
}
}
void sighandler()
{
signal worker thread to finish
waitForWorkerThreadFinished;
}
void main()
{
InstallSignalHandler;
CreateSemaphore
StartThread;
waitForWorkerThreadFinished;
}
Clearly a timing issue. Using a signalling mechanism should remove the problem.
The use of printf solves the problem because printf accesses the console which is an expensive and time consuming process which in your case gives enough time for the worker to complete its work.
I'm following an example in the Linux Device Drivers 3rd Edition book:
if (temp = = 0)
wake_up_interruptible_sync(&scull_w_wait); /* awake other uid's */
return 0;
The author states:
Here is an example of where calling wake_up_interruptible_sync makes sense. When we do
the wakeup, we are just about to return to user space, which is a natural scheduling
point for the system. Rather than potentially reschedule when we do the wakeup, it is
better to just call the "sync" version and finish our job.
I don't understand why using wake_up_interruptible_sync is better in this situation. The author implies that this call will prevent a reschedule -- which it does prevent within the call -- but after wake_up_interruptible_sync returns, couldn't another thread just take control of the CPU anyway before the return 0 line?
So what is the difference between calling wake_up_interruptible_sync over the typical wake_up_interruptible if a thread can take control of the CPU regardless after each call?
The reason for using _sync is that we know that the scheduler will run within a short time, so we do not need to run it a second time.
However, this is just an optimization; if the scheduler did run again, nothing bad would happen.
A timer interrupt can indeed happen at any time, but it would be needed only if the scheduler did not already run recently for some other reason.