I have been spending the last 20 minutes doing research on empty loops which purpose are only to wait for a condition to become true.
I have a function called "waitForLoaded" which is a thread created by CreateThread.
The function:
void waitForLoaded(){
while(!isLoaded){
Sleep(500); // < my question
}
Sleep(500); //sleep another 500ms to ensure everything is loaded.
//continue on here
}
I am using Sleep(500) to be easy on the CPU as I believe that using either 0 or 1 would drain the processor.
I have seen in many peoples code "Sleep(0)" used and I never understood why not just no sleep at all and to do "while(condition){}.."
I can't find any solid answer on which is more CPU friendly so I am asking people here, what is the difference between busy-waiting with 0ms, 1ms or 500ms and which is more CPU friendly.
In my opinion it would be best to do at least a half sleep which is nearly unnoticeable by the user.
On windows a Sleep(0) will not spend any time sleeping, but allows the OS to relinquish the CPU to another waiting thread. It's kind of like saying "If someone is waiting in line let them go ahead, otherwise I'd like to go right away."
If I understand your question, you are asking which is superior of these wait methods:
sleep(500)
sleep(1)
sleep(0)
// (do nothing)
If you have the time to afford a sleep(500), then the answer is "sleep(500)"
A simple synchronization primitive around event or something similar would drain less of CPU AND your thread would hopefully get to work sooner than worst case 500 ms with your 500 ms wait.
First you need to study your problem.
Do you need a busy wait?
Can you use a dispatcher?
Can you detect the exact moment when the data is available or the operation has finished?
I would take a look into different approaches like event file descriptor, or condition variable.
Condition variable approach:
boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(m_mutex);
while(queue.empty() && !m_quit) {
m_condition.wait(lock);
}
Event File descriptor approach
m_loopFD = eventfd(0,EFD_CLOEXEC|EFD_NONBLOCK);
if(m_loopFD < 0) {
close(m_epollFD);
throw ...
}
struct epoll_event event;
memset(&event, 0, sizeof(struct epoll_event));
event.data.fd = m_loopFD;
event.events = EPOLLIN;
if(epoll_ctl(m_epollFD, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, m_loopFD, &event) != 0) {
throw ...
}
Later you may have something like this
int res = epoll_wait(m_epollFD, events, MAX_EVENTS, timeout);
and to wake it up:
uint64_t value = 0x01;
write(m_loopFD, &value, sizeof(value));
Busy waiting is basically related to a code which must calculate something to only lose the time. The Sleep does use OS scheduler in case if need to wait a quite long period of time which means it is not stable for period of times less than the scheduler time quant which is ~15ms for the Windows OS.
This is not acceptible for example in case of a spinlock.
The most simple code what I could get is:
#include <cstdlib>
inline void noop_by_rand(int num)
{
while (num--) rand();
}
Pros:
It is a builtin function with a fixed time of calculation less than the OS scheduler time quant.
Can be easely scaled on longer time.
The compiler optimization can not avoid the call or reduce the code because of external function.
Does rely on CPU performance instead of the time, which means it does scale with the performance of the CPU.
Cons:
Does not avoid the OS scheduler. If busy wait time is too long, then OS scheduler will anyway handle the thread for scheduling, which means it can lose much more time than requested.
Recently i've been trying to create a wait function that waits for 25 ms using the wall clock as reference. I looked around and found "gettimeofday", but i've been having problems with it. My code (simplified):
while(1)
{
timeval start, end;
double t_us;
bool release = false;
while (release == false)
{
gettimeofday(&start, NULL);
DoStuff();
{
gettimeofday(&end, NULL);
t_us = ( (end.tv_sec - start.tv_sec) * 1000*1000) + (end.tv_usec - start.tv_usec);
if (t_us >= 25000) //25 ms
{
release = true;
}
}
}
}
This code runs in a thread (Posix) and, on it's its own, works fine. DoStuff() is called every 25ms. It does however eat all the CPU if it can (as you might expect) so obviously this isn't a good idea.
When I tried throttling it by adding a Sleep(1); in the wait loop after the if statement, the entire thing slows by about 50% (that is, it called DoStuff every 37ms or so. This makes no sense to me - assuming DoStuff and any other threads complete their tasks in under (25 - 1) ms the called rate of DoStuff shouldn't be affected (allowing a 1ms error margin)
I also tried Sleep(0), usleep(1000) and usleep(0) but the behaviour is the same.
The same behaviour occurs whenever another higher priority thread needs CPU time (without the sleep). It's as if the clock stops counting when the thread reliqnuishes runtime.
I'm aware that gettimeofday is vulnerable to things like NTP updates etc... so I tried using clock_gettime but linking -ltr on my system causes problems so i don't think that is an option.
Does anyone know what i'm doing wrong?
The part that's missing here is how the kernel does thread scheduling based on time slices. In rough numbers, if you sleep at the beginning of your time slice for 1ms and the scheduling is done on a 35ms clock rate, your thread may not execute again for 35ms. If you sleep for 40ms, your thread may not execute again for 70ms. You can't really change that without changing the scheduling, but that's not recommended due to overall performance implications of the system. You could use a "high-resolution" timer, but often that's implemented in a tight cycle-wasting loop of "while it's not time yet, chew CPU" so that's not really desirable either.
If you used a high-resolution clock and queried it frequently inside of your DoStuff loop, you could potentially play some tricks like run for 30ms, then do a sleep(1) which could effectively relinquish your thread for the remainder of your timeslice (e.g. 5ms) to let other threads run. Kind of a cooperative/preemptive multitasking if you will. It's still possible you don't get back to work for an extended period of time though...
All variants of sleep()/usleep() involve yielding the CPU to other runnable tasks. Your programm can then run only after it is rescheduled by the kernel, which seems to last about 37 ms in your case.
I developed a class for calculations on multithreads and only one instance of this class is used by a thread. Also I want to measure the duration of calculations by iterating over a container of this class from another thread. The application is win32. The thing is I have read QueryPerformanceCounter is useful when comparing the measuremnts on a single thread. Because I can not use it my problem, I think of clock() or GetSystemTime(). It is sad that both methods have a 'resolution' of milliseconds (since CLOCKS_PER_SEC is 1000 on win32). Which method should I use or to generalize, is there a better option for me?
As a rule I have to take the measurements outside the working thread.
Here is some code as an example.
unsinged long GetCounter()
{
SYSTEMTIME ww;
GetSystemTime(&ww);
return ww.wMilliseconds + 1000 * ww.wSeconds;
// or
return clock();
}
class WorkClass
{
bool is_working;
unsigned long counter;
HANDLE threadHandle;
public:
DoWork()
{
threadHandle = GetCurrentThread();
is_working = true;
counter = GetCounter();
// Do some work
is_working = false;
}
};
void CheckDurations() // will work on another thread;
{
for(size_t i =0;i < vector_of_workClass.size(); ++i)
{
WorkClass & wc = vector_of_workClass[i];
if(wc.is_working)
{
unsigned long dur = GetCounter() - wc.counter;
ReportDuration(wc,dur);
if( dur > someLimitValue)
TerminateThread(wc.threadHandle);
}
}
}
QueryPerformanceCounter is fine for multithreaded applications. The processor instruction that may be used (rdtsc) can potentially provide invalid results when called on different processors.
I recommend reading "Game Timing and Multicore Processors".
For your specific application, the problem it appears you are trying to solve is using a timeout on some potentially long-running threads. The proper solution to this would be to use the WaitForMultipleObjects function with a timeout value. If the time expires, then you can terminate any threads that are still running - ideally by setting a flag that each thread checks, but TerminateThread may be suitable.
both methods have a precision of milliseconds
They don't. They have a resolution of a millisecond, the precision is far worse. Most machines increment the value only at intervals of 15.625 msec. That's a heckofalot of CPU cycles, usually not good enough to get any reliable indicator of code efficiency.
QPF does much better, no idea why you couldn't use it. A profiler is a the standard tool to measure code efficiency. Beats taking dependencies you don't want.
QueryPerformanceCounter should give you the best precision, but there is issues when the function get run on different processors (you get a different result for each processor). So when running in a thread you will experience shifts when the thread switch processor. To solve this you can set processor affinity for the thread that measures time.
GetSystemTime gets an absolute time, clock is a relative time but both measure elapsed time, not CPU time related to the actual thread/process.
Of course clock() is more portable. Having said that I use clock_gettime on Linux because I can get both elapsed and thread CPU time with that call.
boost has some time functions that you could use that will run on multiple platforms if you want platform independent code.
I am running some profiling tests, and usleep is an useful function. But while my program is sleeping, this time does not appear in the profile.
eg. if I have a function as :
void f1() {
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
usleep(1000);
}
With profile tools as gprof, f1 does not seems to consume any time.
What I am looking is a method nicer than an empty while loop for doing an active sleep, like:
while (1) {
if (gettime() == whatiwant)
break;
}
What kind of a system are you on? In UNIX-like systems you can use setitimer() to send a signal to a process after a specified period of time. This is the facility you would need to implement the type of "active sleep" you're looking for.
Set the timer, then loop until you receive the signal.
Because when you call usleep the CPU is put to work to something else for 1 second. So the current thread does not use any processor resources, and that's a very clever thing to do.
An active sleep is something to absolutely avoid because it's a waste of resources (ultimately damaging the environment by converting electricity to heat ;) ).
Anyway if you really want to do that you must give some real work to do to the processor, something that will not be factored out by compiler optimizations. For example
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
time(NULL);
I assume you want to find out the total amount of time (wall-clock time, real-world time, the time you are sitting watching your app run) f1() is taking, as opposed to CPU time. I'd investigate to see if gprof can give you a wall-clock-time instead of a processing-time.
I imagine it depends upon your OS, but the reason you aren't seeing usleep as taking any process time in the profile is because it technically isn't using any during that time - other running processes are (assuming this is running on a *nix platform).
for (int i = i; i < SOME_BIG_NUMBER; ++i);
The entire point in "sleep" functions is that your application is not running. It is put in a sleep queue, and the OS transfers control to another process. If you want your application to run, but do nothing, an empty loop is a simple solution. But you lose all the benefits of sleep (letting other applications run, saving CPU usage/power consumption)
So what you're asking makes no sense. You can't have your application sleep, but still be running.
AFAIK the only option is to do a while loop. The operating system generally assumes that if you want to wait for a period of time that you will want to be yielding to the operating system.
Being able to get a microsecond accurate timer is also a potential issue. AFAIK there isn't a cross-platform way of doing timing (please someone correct me on this because i'd love a cross-platform sub-microsecond timer! :D). Under Win32, You could surround a loop with some QueryPerformanceCounter calls to work out when you have spent enough time in the loop and then exit.
e.g
void USleepEatCycles( __int64 uSecs )
{
__int64 frequency;
QueryPerformanceFrequency( (LARGE_INTEGER*)&frequency );
__int64 counter;
QueryPerformanceCounter( (LARGE_INTEGER*)&counter );
double dStart = (double)counter / (double)frequency;
double dEnd = dStart;
while( (dEnd - dStart) < uSecs )
{
QueryPerformanceCounter( (LARGE_INTEGER*)&counter );
dEnd = (double)counter / (double)frequency;
}
}
That's why it's important when profiling to look at the "Switched Out %" time. Basically, while your function's exclusive time may be little, if it performs e.g. I/O, DB, etc, waiting for external resources, then "Switched Out %" is the metric to watch out.
This is the kind of confusion you get with gprof, since what you care about is wall-clock time. I use this.
On Windows I have a problem I never encountered on Unix. That is how to get a thread to sleep for less than one millisecond. On Unix you typically have a number of choices (sleep, usleep and nanosleep) to fit your needs. On Windows, however, there is only Sleep with millisecond granularity.
On Unix, I can use the use the select system call to create a microsecond sleep which is pretty straightforward:
int usleep(long usec)
{
struct timeval tv;
tv.tv_sec = usec/1000000L;
tv.tv_usec = usec%1000000L;
return select(0, 0, 0, 0, &tv);
}
How can I achieve the same on Windows?
This indicates a mis-understanding of sleep functions. The parameter you pass is a minimum time for sleeping. There's no guarantee that the thread will wake up after exactly the time specified. In fact, threads don't "wake up" at all, but are rather chosen for execution by the OS scheduler. The scheduler might choose to wait much longer than the requested sleep duration to activate a thread, especially if another thread is still active at that moment.
As Joel says, you can't meaningfully 'sleep' (i.e. relinquish your scheduled CPU) for such short periods. If you want to delay for some short time, then you need to spin, repeatedly checking a suitably high-resolution timer (e.g. the 'performance timer') and hoping that something of high priority doesn't pre-empt you anyway.
If you really care about accurate delays of such short times, you should not be using Windows.
Use the high resolution multimedia timers available in winmm.lib. See this for an example.
#include <Windows.h>
static NTSTATUS(__stdcall *NtDelayExecution)(BOOL Alertable, PLARGE_INTEGER DelayInterval) = (NTSTATUS(__stdcall*)(BOOL, PLARGE_INTEGER)) GetProcAddress(GetModuleHandle("ntdll.dll"), "NtDelayExecution");
static NTSTATUS(__stdcall *ZwSetTimerResolution)(IN ULONG RequestedResolution, IN BOOLEAN Set, OUT PULONG ActualResolution) = (NTSTATUS(__stdcall*)(ULONG, BOOLEAN, PULONG)) GetProcAddress(GetModuleHandle("ntdll.dll"), "ZwSetTimerResolution");
static void SleepShort(float milliseconds) {
static bool once = true;
if (once) {
ULONG actualResolution;
ZwSetTimerResolution(1, true, &actualResolution);
once = false;
}
LARGE_INTEGER interval;
interval.QuadPart = -1 * (int)(milliseconds * 10000.0f);
NtDelayExecution(false, &interval);
}
Works very well for sleeping extremely short times. Remember though that at a certain point the actual delays will never be consistent because the system can't maintain consistent delays of such a short time.
Yes, you need to understand your OS' time quantums. On Windows, you won't even be getting 1ms resolution times unless you change the time quantum to 1ms. (Using for example timeBeginPeriod()/timeEndPeriod()) That still won't really guarantee anything. Even a little load or a single crappy device driver will throw everything off.
SetThreadPriority() helps, but is quite dangerous. Bad device drivers can still ruin you.
You need an ultra-controlled computing environment to make this ugly stuff work at all.
Generally a sleep will last at least until the next system interrupt occurs. However, this
depends on settings of the multimedia timer resources. It may be set to something close to
1 ms, some hardware even allows to run at interrupt periods of 0.9765625 (ActualResolution provided by NtQueryTimerResolution will show 0.9766 but that's actually wrong. They just can't put the correct number into the ActualResolution format. It's 0.9765625ms at 1024 interrupts per second).
There is one exception wich allows us to escape from the fact that it may be impossible to sleep for less than the interrupt period: It is the famous Sleep(0). This is a very powerful
tool and it is not used as often as it should! It relinquishes the reminder of the thread's time slice. This way the thread will stop until the scheduler forces the thread to get cpu service again. Sleep(0) is an asynchronous service, the call will force the scheduler to react independent of an interrupt.
A second way is the use of a waitable object. A wait function like WaitForSingleObject() can wait for an event. In order to have a thread sleeping for any time, also times in the microsecond regime, the thread needs to setup some service thread which will generate an event at the desired delay. The "sleeping" thread will setup this thread and then pause at the wait function until the service thread will set the event signaled.
This way any thread can "sleep" or wait for any time. The service thread can be of big complexity and it may offer system wide services like timed events at microsecond resolution. However, microsecond resolution may force the service thread to spin on a high resolution time service for at most one interrupt period (~1ms). If care is taken, this can
run very well, particulary on multi-processor or multi-core systems. A one ms spin does not hurt considerably on multi-core system, when the affinity mask for the calling thread and the service thread are carefully handled.
Code, description, and testing can be visited at the Windows Timestamp Project
As several people have pointed out, sleep and other related functions are by default dependent on the "system tick". This is the minimum unit of time between OS tasks; the scheduler, for instance, will not run faster than this. Even with a realtime OS, the system tick is not usually less than 1 ms. While it is tunable, this has implications for the entire system, not just your sleep functionality, because your scheduler will be running more frequently, and potentially increasing the overhead of your OS (amount of time for the scheduler to run, vs. amount of time a task can run).
The solution to this is to use an external, high-speed clock device. Most Unix systems will allow you to specify to your timers and such a different clock to use, as opposed to the default system clock.
What are you waiting for that requires such precision? In general if you need to specify that level of precision (e.g. because of a dependency on some external hardware) you are on the wrong platform and should look at a real time OS.
Otherwise you should be considering if there is an event you can synchronize on, or in the worse case just busy wait the CPU and use the high performance counter API to measure the elapsed time.
If you want so much granularity you are in the wrong place (in user space).
Remember that if you are in user space your time is not always precise.
The scheduler can start your thread (or app), and schedule it, so you are depending by the OS scheduler.
If you are looking for something precise you have to go:
1) In kernel space (like drivers)
2) Choose an RTOS.
Anyway if you are looking for some granularity (but remember the problem with user space ) look to
QueryPerformanceCounter Function and QueryPerformanceFrequency function in MSDN.
Actually using this usleep function will cause a big memory/resource leak. (depending how often called)
use this corrected version (sorry can't edit?)
bool usleep(unsigned long usec)
{
struct timeval tv;
fd_set dummy;
SOCKET s = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP);
FD_ZERO(&dummy);
FD_SET(s, &dummy);
tv.tv_sec = usec / 1000000ul;
tv.tv_usec = usec % 1000000ul;
bool success = (0 == select(0, 0, 0, &dummy, &tv));
closesocket(s);
return success;
}
I have the same problem and nothing seems to be faster than a ms, even the Sleep(0). My problem is the communication between a client and a server application where I use the _InterlockedExchange function to test and set a bit and then I Sleep(0).
I really need to perform thousands of operations per second this way and it doesn't work as fast as I planned.
Since I have a thin client dealing with the user, which in turn invokes an agent which then talks to a thread, I will move soon to merge the thread with the agent so that no event interface will be required.
Just to give you guys an idea how slow this Sleep is, I ran a test for 10 seconds performing an empty loop (getting something like 18,000,000 loops) whereas with the event in place I only got 180,000 loops. That is, 100 times slower!
Try using SetWaitableTimer...
Like everybody mentioned, there is indeed no guarantees about the sleep time.
But nobody wants to admit that sometimes, on an idle system, the usleep command can be very precise. Especially with a tickless kernel. Windows Vista has it and Linux has it since 2.6.16.
Tickless kernels exists to help improve laptops batterly life: c.f. Intel's powertop utility.
In that condition, I happend to have measured the Linux usleep command that respected the requested sleep time very closely, down to half a dozen of micro seconds.
So, maybe the OP wants something that will roughly work most of the time on an idling system, and be able to ask for micro second scheduling!
I actually would want that on Windows too.
Also Sleep(0) sounds like boost::thread::yield(), which terminology is clearer.
I wonder if Boost-timed locks have a better precision. Because then you could just lock on a mutex that nobody ever releases, and when the timeout is reached, continue on...
Timeouts are set with boost::system_time + boost::milliseconds & cie (xtime is deprecated).
If your goal is to "wait for a very short amount of time" because you are doing a spinwait, then there are increasing levels of waiting you can perform.
void SpinOnce(ref Int32 spin)
{
/*
SpinOnce is called each time we need to wait.
But the action it takes depends on how many times we've been spinning:
1..12 spins: spin 2..4096 cycles
12..32: call SwitchToThread (allow another thread ready to go on time core to execute)
over 32 spins: Sleep(0) (give up the remainder of our timeslice to any other thread ready to run, also allows APC and I/O callbacks)
*/
spin += 1;
if (spin > 32)
Sleep(0); //give up the remainder of our timeslice
else if (spin > 12)
SwitchTothread(); //allow another thread on our CPU to have the remainder of our timeslice
else
{
int loops = (1 << spin); //1..12 ==> 2..4096
while (loops > 0)
loops -= 1;
}
}
So if your goal is actually to wait only for a little bit, you can use something like:
int spin = 0;
while (!TryAcquireLock())
{
SpinOne(ref spin);
}
The virtue here is that we wait longer each time, eventually going completely to sleep.
Just use Sleep(0). 0 is clearly less than a millisecond. Now, that sounds funny, but I'm serious. Sleep(0) tells Windows that you don't have anything to do right now, but that you do want to be reconsidered as soon as the scheduler runs again. And since obviously the thread can't be scheduled to run before the scheduler itself runs, this is the shortest delay possible.
Note that you can pass in a microsecond number to your usleep, but so does void usleep(__int64 t) { Sleep(t/1000); } - no guarantees to actually sleeping that period.
Sleep function that is way less than a millisecond-maybe
I found that sleep(0) worked for me. On a system with a near 0% load on the cpu in task manager, I wrote a simple console program and the sleep(0) function slept for a consistent 1-3 microseconds, which is way less than a millisecond.
But from the above answers in this thread, I know that the amount sleep(0) sleeps can vary much more wildly than this on systems with a large cpu load.
But as I understand it, the sleep function should not be used as a timer. It should be used to make the program use the least percentage of the cpu as possible and execute as frequently as possible. For my purposes, such as moving a projectile across the screen in a videogame much faster than one pixel a millisecond, sleep(0) works, I think.
You would just make sure the sleep interval is way smaller than the largest amount of time it would sleep. You don't use the sleep as a timer but just to make the game use the minimum amount of cpu percentage possible. You would use a separate function that has nothing to do is sleep to get to know when a particular amount of time has passed and then move the projectile one pixel across the screen-at a time of say 1/10th of a millisecond or 100 microseconds.
The pseudo-code would go something like this.
while (timer1 < 100 microseconds) {
sleep(0);
}
if (timer2 >=100 microseconds) {
move projectile one pixel
}
//Rest of code in iteration here
I know the answer may not work for advanced issues or programs but may work for some or many programs.
If the machine is running Windows 10 version 1803 or later then you can use CreateWaitableTimerExW with the CREATE_WAITABLE_TIMER_HIGH_RESOLUTION flag.
On Windows the use of select forces you to include the Winsock library which has to be initialized like this in your application:
WORD wVersionRequested = MAKEWORD(1,0);
WSADATA wsaData;
WSAStartup(wVersionRequested, &wsaData);
And then the select won't allow you to be called without any socket so you have to do a little more to create a microsleep method:
int usleep(long usec)
{
struct timeval tv;
fd_set dummy;
SOCKET s = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP);
FD_ZERO(&dummy);
FD_SET(s, &dummy);
tv.tv_sec = usec/1000000L;
tv.tv_usec = usec%1000000L;
return select(0, 0, 0, &dummy, &tv);
}
All these created usleep methods return zero when successful and non-zero for errors.