I need to get exact timestamps every couple of ms (20, 30, 40ms) over a long period of time (a couple of hours). The function in which the timestamp is taken is invoked as a callback by a 3rd-party library.
Using GetSystemTime() one can get the correct system timestamp but only with milliseconds accuracy, which is not precise enough for me. Using QueryPerformanceTimer() yields more accurate timestamps but is not synchronous to the system timestamp over a long period of time (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163996.aspx).
The solution provided at the site linked above somehow works only on older computers, it hangs while synchronizing when i try to use it with newer computers.
It seems to me like boost is also only working on milliseconds accuracy.
If possible, I'd like to avoid using external libraries, but if there's no other choice I'll go with it.
Any suggestions?
Deleted article from CodeProject, this seems to be the copy: DateTimePrecise C# Class The idea is to use QueryPerformanceCounter API for accurate small increments and periodically adjust it in order to keep long term accuracy. This is about to give microsecond accuracy ("about" because it's still not exactly precise, but still quite usable).
See also: Microsecond resolution timestamps on Windows
Which language are you using?
In Java (1.5 or above) I'd suggest 'System.nanoTime()' which requires no import.
Remember in Windows that time-slice granularity is 1000ms / 64 = 15.625ms.
This will affect inter-process communication, especially on uni-processor machines, or machines that run several heavy CPU usage processes 'concurrently'*.
In fact, I just got DOS 6.22 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11/3.15 via eBay, so I can screenshot the original timeslice configuration for uni-processor Windows machines of the era when I started to get into it. (Although it might not be visible in versions above 3.0).
You'll be hard pressed to find anything better than QueryPerformanceTimer() on Windows.
On modern hardware it uses the HPET as a source which replaces the RTC interrupt controller. I would expect QueryPerformanceTimer() and the System clock to be synchronous.
There is no such QueryPerformanceTimer() on windows. The resource is named QueryPerformanceCounter(). It provides a counter value counting at some higher frequency.
Its incrementing frequency can be retrieved by a call to QueryPerformanceFrequency().
Since this frequency is typically in the MHz range, microsecond resolution can be observed.
There are some implementations around, i.e. this thread or at the Windows Timestamp Project
A Hacker's Tale
The date is 12/02/10. The days before Christmas are dripping away and I've pretty much hit a major road block as a windows programmer. I've been using AQTime, I've tried sleepy, shiny, and very sleepy, and as we speak, VTune is installing. I've tried to use the VS2008 profiler, and it's been positively punishing as well as often insensible. I've used the random pause technique. I've examined call-trees. I've fired off function traces. But the sad painful fact of the matter is that the app I'm working with is over a million lines of code, with probably another million lines worth of third-party apps.
I need better tools. I've read the other topics. I've tried out each profiler listed in each topic. There simply has to be something better than these junky and expensive options, or ludicrous amounts of work for almost no gain. To further complicate matters, our code is heavily threaded, and runs a number of Qt Event loops, some of which are so fragile that they crash under heavy instrumentation due to timing delays. Don't ask me why we're running multiple event loops. No one can tell me.
Are there any options more along the lines of Valgrind in a windows environment?
Is there anything better than the long swath of broken tools I've already tried?
Is there anything designed to integrate with Qt, perhaps with a useful display of events in queue?
A full list of the tools I tried, with the ones that were really useful in italics:
AQTime: Rather good! Has some trouble with deep recursion, but the call graph is correct in these cases, and can be used to clear up any confusion you might have. Not a perfect tool, but worth trying out. It might suit your needs, and it certainly was good enough for me most of the time.
Random Pause attack in debug mode: Not enough information enough of the time.
A good tool but not a complete solution.
Parallel Studios: The nuclear option. Obtrusive, weird, and crazily powerful. I think you should hit up the 30 day evaluation, and figure out if it's a good fit. It's just darn cool, too.
AMD Codeanalyst: Wonderful, easy to use, very crash-prone, but I think that's an environment thing. I'd recommend trying it, as it is free.
Luke Stackwalker: Works fine on small projects, it's a bit trying to get it working on ours. Some good results though, and it definitely replaces Sleepy for my personal tasks.
PurifyPlus: No support for Win-x64 environments, most prominently Windows 7. Otherwise excellent. A number of my colleagues in other departments swear by it.
VS2008 Profiler: Produces output in the 100+gigs range in function trace mode at the required resolution. On the plus side, produces solid results.
GProf: Requires GCC to be even moderately effective.
VTune: VTune's W7 support borders on criminal. Otherwise excellent
PIN: I'd need to hack up my own tool, so this is sort of a last resort.
Sleepy\VerySleepy: Useful for smaller apps, but failing me here.
EasyProfiler: Not bad if you don't mind a bit of manually injected code to indicate where to instrument.
Valgrind: *nix only, but very good when you're in that environment.
OProfile: Linux only.
Proffy: They shoot wild horses.
Suggested tools that I haven't tried:
XPerf:
Glowcode:
Devpartner:
Notes:
Intel environment at the moment. VS2008, boost libraries. Qt 4+. And the wretched humdinger of them all: Qt/MFC integration via trolltech.
Now: Almost two weeks later, it looks like my issue is resolved. Thanks to a variety of tools, including almost everything on the list and a couple of my personal tricks, we found the primary bottlenecks. However, I'm going to keep testing, exploring, and trying out new profilers as well as new tech. Why? Because I owe it to you guys, because you guys rock. It does slow the timeline down a little, but I'm still very excited to keep trying out new tools.
Synopsis
Among many other problems, a number of components had recently been switched to the incorrect threading model, causing serious hang-ups due to the fact that the code underneath us was suddenly no longer multithreaded. I can't say more because it violates my NDA, but I can tell you that this would never have been found by casual inspection or even by normal code review. Without profilers, callgraphs, and random pausing in conjunction, we'd still be screaming our fury at the beautiful blue arc of the sky. Thankfully, I work with some of the best hackers I've ever met, and I have access to an amazing 'verse full of great tools and great people.
Gentlefolk, I appreciate this tremendously, and only regret that I don't have enough rep to reward each of you with a bounty. I still think this is an important question to get a better answer to than the ones we've got so far on SO.
As a result, each week for the next three weeks, I'll be putting up the biggest bounty I can afford, and awarding it to the answer with the nicest tool that I think isn't common knowledge. After three weeks, we'll hopefully have accumulated a definitive profile of the profilers, if you'll pardon my punning.
Take-away
Use a profiler. They're good enough for Ritchie, Kernighan, Bentley, and Knuth. I don't care who you think you are. Use a profiler. If the one you've got doesn't work, find another. If you can't find one, code one. If you can't code one, or it's a small hang up, or you're just stuck, use random pausing. If all else fails, hire some grad students to bang out a profiler.
A Longer View
So, I thought it might be nice to write up a bit of a retrospective. I opted to work extensively with Parallel Studios, in part because it is actually built on top of the PIN Tool. Having had academic dealings with some of the researchers involved, I felt that this was probably a mark of some quality. Thankfully, I was right. While the GUI is a bit dreadful, I found IPS to be incredibly useful, though I can't comfortably recommend it for everyone. Critically, there's no obvious way to get line-level hit counts, something that AQT and a number of other profilers provide, and I've found very useful for examining rate of branch-selection among other things. In net, I've enjoyed using AQTime as well, and I've found their support to be really responsive. Again, I have to qualify my recommendation: A lot of their features don't work that well, and some of them are downright crash-prone on Win7x64. XPerf also performed admirably, but is agonizingly slow for the sampling detail required to get good reads on certain kinds of applications.
Right now, I'd have to say that I don't think there's a definitive option for profiling C++ code in a W7x64 environment, but there are certainly options that simply fail to perform any useful service.
First:
Time sampling profilers are more robust than CPU sampling profilers. I'm not extremely familiar with Windows development tools so I can't say which ones are which. Most profilers are CPU sampling.
A CPU sampling profiler grabs a stack trace every N instructions.
This technique will reveal portions of your code that are CPU bound. Which is awesome if that is the bottle neck in your application. Not so great if your application threads spend most of their time fighting over a mutex.
A time sampling profiler grabs a stack trace every N microseconds.
This technique will zero in on "slow" code. Whether the cause is CPU bound, blocking IO bound, mutex bound, or cache thrashing sections of code. In short what ever piece of code is slowing your application will standout.
So use a time sampling profiler if at all possible especially when profiling threaded code.
Second:
Sampling profilers generate gobs of data. The data is extremely useful, but there is often too much to be easily useful. A profile data visualizer helps tremendously here. The best tool I've found for profile data visualization is gprof2dot. Don't let the name fool you, it handles all kinds of sampling profiler output (AQtime, Sleepy, XPerf, etc). Once the visualization has pointed out the offending function(s), jump back to the raw profile data to get better hints on what the real cause is.
The gprof2dot tool generates a dot graph description that you then feed into a graphviz tool. The output is basically a callgraph with functions color coded by their impact on the application.
A few hints to get gprof2dot to generate nice output.
I use a --skew of 0.001 on my graphs so I can easily see the hot code paths. Otherwise the int main() dominates the graph.
If you're doing anything crazy with C++ templates you'll probably want to add --strip. This is especially true with Boost.
I use OProfile to generate my sampling data. To get good output I need configure it to load the debug symbols from my 3rd party and system libraries. Be sure to do the same, otherwise you'll see that CRT is taking 20% of your application's time when what's really going on is malloc is trashing the heap and eating up 15%.
What happened when you tried random pausing? I use it all the time on a monster app. You said it did not give enough information, and you've suggested you need high resolution. Sometimes people need a little help in understanding how to use it.
What I do, under VS, is configure the stack display so it doesn't show me the function arguments, because that makes the stack display totally unreadable, IMO.
Then I take about 10 samples by hitting "pause" during the time it's making me wait. I use ^A, ^C, and ^V to copy them into notepad, for reference. Then I study each one, to try to figure out what it was in the process of trying to accomplish at that time.
If it was trying to accomplish something on 2 or more samples, and that thing is not strictly necessary, then I've found a live problem, and I know roughly how much fixing it will save.
There are things you don't really need to know, like precise percents are not important, and what goes on inside 3rd-party code is not important, because you can't do anything about those. What you can do something about is the rich set of call-points in code you can modify displayed on each stack sample. That's your happy hunting ground.
Examples of the kinds of things I find:
During startup, it can be about 30 layers deep, in the process of trying to extract internationalized character strings from DLL resources. If the actual strings are examined, it can easily turn out that the strings don't really need to be internationalized, like they are strings the user never actually sees.
During normal usage, some code innocently sets a Modified property in some object. That object comes from a super-class that captures the change and triggers notifications that ripple throughout the entire data structure, manipulating the UI, creating and desroying obects in ways hard to foresee. This can happen a lot - the unexpected consequences of notifications.
Filling in a worksheet row-by-row, cell-by-cell. It turns out if you build the row all at once, from an array of values, it's a lot faster.
P.S. If you're multi-threaded, when you pause it, all threads pause. Take a look at the call stack of each thread. Chances are, only one of them is the real culprit, and the others are idling.
I've had some success with AMD CodeAnalyst.
Do you have an MFC OnIdle function? In the past I had a near real-time app I had to fix that was dropping serial packets when set at 19.2K speed which a PentiumD should have been able to keep up with. The OnIdle function was what was killing things. I'm not sure if QT has that concept, but I'd check for that too.
Re the VS Profiler -- if it's generating such large files, perhaps your sampling interval is too frequent? Try lowering it, as you probably have enough samples anyway.
And ideally, make sure you're not collecting samples until you're actually exercising the problem area. So start with collection paused, get your program to do its "slow activity", then start collection. You only need at most 20 seconds of collection. Stop collection after this.
This should help reduce your sample file sizes, and only capture what is necessary for your analysis.
I have successfully used PurifyPlus for Windows. Although it is not cheap, IBM provides a trial version that is slightly crippled. All you need for profiling with quantify are pdb files and linking with /FIXED:NO. Only drawback: No support for Win7/64.
Easyprofiler - I haven't seen it mentioned here yet so not sure if you've looked at it already. It takes a slightly different approach in how it gathers metric data. A drawback to using its compile-time profile approach is you have to make changes to the code-base. Thus you'll need to have some idea of where the slow might be and insert profiling code there.
Going by your latest comments though, it sounds like you're at least making some headway. Perhaps this tool might provide some useful metrics for you. If nothing else it has some really purdy charts and pictures :P
Two more tool suggestions.
Luke Stackwalker has a cute name (even if it's trying a bit hard for my taste), it won't cost you anything, and you get the source code. It claims to support multi threaded programs, too. So it is surely worth a spin.
http://lukestackwalker.sourceforge.net/
Also Glowcode, which I've had pointed out to me as worth using:
http://www.glowcode.com/
Unfortunately I haven't done any PC work for a while, so I haven't tried either of these. I hope the suggestions are of help anyway.
Checkout XPerf
This is free, non-invasive and extensible profiler offered by MS. It was developed by Microsoft to profile Windows.
If you're suspicious of the event loop, could overriding QCoreApplication::notify() and dosome manual profiling (one or two maps of senders/events to counts/time)?
I'm thinking that you first log the frequency of event types, then examine those events more carefully (which object sends it, what does it contain, etc). Signals across threads are queued implicitly, so they end up in the event loop (as well explicit queued connections too, obviously).
We've done it to trap and report exceptions in our event handlers, so really, every event goes through there.
Just an idea.
Edit: I see now you mentioned this in your first post. Dammit, I never thought I'd be that guy.
You can use Pin to instrument your code with finer granularity. I think Pin would let you create a tool to count how many times you enter a function or how many clockticks you spend there, roughly emulating something like VTune or CodeAnalyst. Then you could strip down which functions get instrumented until your timing issues go away.
I can tell you what I use everyday.
a) AMD Code Analyst
It is easy, and it will give you a quick overview of what is happening. It will be ok for most of the time.
With AMD CPUs, it will tell you info about the cpu pipeline, but you only need this only if you have heavy loops, like in graphic engines, video codecs, etc.
b) VTune.
It is very well integrated in vs2008
after you know the hotspots, you need to sample not only time, but other things like cache misses, and memory usage. This is very important. Setup a sampling session, and edit the properties. I always sample for time, memory read/write, and cache misses (three different runs)
But more than the tool, you need to get experience with profiling. And that means understanding how the CPU/Memory/PCI works... so, this is my 3rd option
c) Unit testing
This is very important if you are developing a big application that needs huge performance. If you cannot split the app in some pieces, it will be difficult to track cpu usage. I dont test all the cases and classes, but I have hardcoded executions and input files with important features.
My advice is using random sampling in several small tests, and try to standardise a profile strategy.
I use xperf/ETW for all of my profiling needs. It has a steep learning curve but is incredibly powerful. If you are profiling on Windows then you must know xperf. I frequently use this profiler to find performance problems in my code and in other people's code.
In the configuration that I use it:
xperf grabs CPU samples from every core that is executing code every
ms. The sampling rate can be increased to 8 KHz and the samples
include user-mode and kernel code. This allows finding out what a
thread is doing while it is running
xperf records every context
switch (allowing for perfect reconstruction of how much time each
thread uses), plus call stacks for when threads are switched in, plus
call stacks for what thread readied another thread, allowing tracing
of wait chains and finding out why a thread is not running
xperf
records all file I/O from all processes
xperf records all disk I/O
from all processes
xperf records what window is active, the CPU
frequency, CPU power state, UI delays, etc.
xperf can also record all
heap allocations from one process, all virtual allocations from all
processes, and much more.
That's a lot of data, all on one timeline, for all processes. No other profiler on Windows can do that.
I have blogged extensively about how to use xperf/ETW. These blog posts, and some professionally quality training videos, can be found here:
http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/etw-training-videos-available-now/
If you want to find out what might happen if you don't use xperf read these blog posts:
http://randomascii.wordpress.com/category/investigative-reporting/
These are tales of performance problems I have found in other people's code, that should have been found by the developers. This includes mshtml.dll being loaded into the VC++ compiler, a denial of service in VC++'s find-in-files, thermal throttling in a surprising number of customer machines, slow single-stepping in Visual Studio, a 4 GB allocation in a hard-disk driver, a powerpoint performance bug, and more.
I just finished the first usable version of CxxProf, a portable manual instrumented profiling library for C++.
It fulfills the following goals:
Easy integration
Easily remove the lib during compile time
Easily remove the lib during runtime
Support for multithreaded applications
Support for distributed systems
Keep impact on a minimum
These points were ripped from the project wiki, have a look there for more details.
Disclaimer: Im the main developer of CxxProf
Just to throw it out, even though it's not a full-blown profiler: if all you're after is hung event loops that take long processing an event, an ad-hoc tool is simple matter in Qt. That approach could be easily expanded to keep track of how long did each event take to process, and what those events were, and so on. It's not a universal profiler, but an event-loop-centric one.
In Qt, all cross-thread signal-slot calls are delivered via the event loop, as are timers, network and serial port notifications, and all user interaction,. Thus, observing the event loops is a big step towards understanding where the application is spending its time.
DevPartner, originally developed by NuMega and now distributed by MicroFocus, was once the solution of choice for profiling and code analysis (memory and resource leaks for example).
I haven't tried it recently, so I cannot assure you it will help you; but I once had excellent results with it, so that this is an alternative I do consider to re-install in our code quality process (they provide a 14 days trial)
though your os is win7,the programm cann't run under xp?
how about profile it under xp and the result should be a hint for win7.
There are lots of profilers listed here and I've tried a few of them myself - however I ended up writing my own based on this:
http://code.google.com/p/high-performance-cplusplus-profiler/
It does of course require that you modify the code base, but it's perfect for narrowing down bottlenecks, should work on all x86s (could be a problem with multi-core boxes, i.e. it uses rdtsc, however - this is purely for indicative timing anyway - so I find it's sufficient for my needs..)
I use Orbit profiler, easy, open source and powerfull ! https://orbitprofiler.com/
It seems that all the major investment banks use C++ in Unix (Linux, Solaris) for their low latency/high frequency server applications. Why is Windows generally not used as a platform for this? Are there technical reasons why Windows can't compete?
The performance requirements on the extremely low-latency systems used for algorithmic trading are extreme. In this environment, microseconds count.
I'm not sure about Solaris, but the case of Linux, these guys are writing and using low-latency patches and customisations for the whole kernel, from the network card drivers on up. It's not that there's a technical reason why that couldn't be done on Windows, but there is a practical/legal one - access to the source code, and the ability to recompile it with changes.
Technically, no. However, there is a very simple business reason: the rest of the financial world runs on Unix. Banks run on AIX, the stock market itself runs on Unix, and therefore, it is simply easier to find programmers in the financial world that are used to a Unix environment, rather than a Windows one.
(I've worked in investment banking for 8 years)
In fact, quite a lot of what banks call low latency is done in Java. And not even Real Time Java - just normal Java with the GC turned off. The main trick here is to make sure you've exercised all of your code enough for the jit to have run before you switch a particular VM into prod ( so you have some startup looping that runs for a couple of minutes - and hot failover).
The reasons for using Linux are:
Familiarity
Remote administration is still better, and also low impact - it will have a minimal effect on the other processes on the machine. Remember, these systems are often co-located at the exchange, so the links to the machines (from you/your support team) will probably be worse than those to your normal datacentres.
Tunability - the ability to set swappiness to 0, get the JVM to preallocate large pages, and other low level tricks is quite useful.
I'm sure you could get Windows to work acceptably, but there is no huge advantage to doing so - as others have said, any employees you poached would have to rediscover all their latency busting tricks rather than just run down a checklist.
Linux/UNIX are much more usable for concurrent remote users, making it easier to script around the systems, use standard tools like grep/sed/awk/perl/ruby/less on logs... ssh/scp... all that stuff's just there.
There are also technical issues, for example: to measure elapsed time on Windows you can choose between a set of functions based on the Windows clock tick, and the hardware-based QueryPerformanceCounter(). The former is increments each 10 to 16 milliseconds (note: some documentation implies more precision - e.g. the values from GetSystemTimeAsFileTime() measure to 100ns, but they report the same 100ns edge of the clock tick until it ticks again). The latter - QueryPerformanceCounter() - has show-stopping issues where different cores/cpus can report clocks-since-startup that differ by several seconds due to being warmed up at different times during system boot. MSDN documents this as a possible BIOS bug, but it's common. So, who wants to develop low-latency trading systems on a platform that can't be instrumented properly? (There are solutions, but you won't find any software ones sitting conveniently in boost or ACE).
Many Linux/UNIX variants have lots of easily tweakable parameters to trade off latency for a single event against average latency under load, time slice sizes, scheduling policies etc.. On open source Operating Systems, there's also the assurance that comes with being able to refer to the code when you think something should be faster than it is, and the knowledge that a (potentially huge) community of people have been and are doing so critically - with Windows it's obviously mainly going to be the people who're assigned to look at it.
On the FUD/reputation side - somewhat intangible but an important part of the reasons for OS selection - I think most programmers in the industry would just trust Linux/UNIX more to provide reliable scheduling and behaviour. Further, Linux/UNIX has a reputation for crashing less, though Windows is pretty reliable these days, and Linux has a much more volatile code base than Solaris or FreeBSD.
Reason is simple, 10-20 years ago when such systems emerged, "hardcore" multi-CPU servers were ONLY on some sort of UNIX. Windows NT was in kinder-garden these days. So the reason is "historical".
Modern systems might be developed on Windows, it's just a matter of taste these days.
PS: I am currencly working on one of such systems :-)
I partially agree with most of the answers above. Though what I have realized is the biggest reason to use C++ is becuase it is relatively faster with a very vast STL library.
Apart from it, linux/unix system is also used to boost performance. I know many low latency team which go to a extent of tweaking the linux kernel. Obviously this level of freedom is not provided by windows.
Other reasons like legacy systems, license cost, resources count as well but are lesser driving factors. As "rjw" mentioned, I have seen teams use Java as well with a modified JVM.
There are a variety of reasons, but the reason is not only historical. In fact, it seems as if more and more server-side financial applications run on *nix these days than ever before (including big names like the London Stock Exchange, who switched from a .NET platform). For client-side or desktop apps, it would be silly to target anything other than Windows, as that is the established platform. However, for server-side apps, most places that I have worked at deploy to *nix.
I second the opinions of historical and access to kernel manipulation.
Apart from those reasons I also believe that just like how they turn off garbage collection of .NET and the similar mechanism in Java when using these technologies in some low latency. They might avoid Windows because of the API's at high level which interact with low level os and then the kernel.
So the core is of course the kernel which can be interacted with using the low level os. The high level APIs are provided just to make the common users life easier. But in case of Low latency this turns out to be a fatty layer and fraction seconds loss around each operation. So a lucrative option for gaining few fraction seconds per call.
Apart from this another thing to consider is integration. Most of the servers, data centers, exchanges use UNIX not windows so using the clients of same family makes the integration and communication easier.
Then you have security issues (many people out there might not agree with this point though) hacking UNIX is not easy compared to hacking WINDOWS. I don't agree licensing must be the issue for banks because they shower money on every single piece of hardware and software and the people who customize them, so buying licenses will not be as bigger the issue when considered what they gain by purchasing.
I there any method to sleep the thread upto 100.8564 millisecond under window OS. I am using multimedia timer but its resolution is minimum 1 second. Kindly guide me so that I can handle the fractional part of the millisecond.
Yes you can do it. See QueryPerformanceCounter() to read accurate time, and make a busy loop.
This will enable you to make waits with up to 10 nanosecond resolution, however, if thread scheduler decides to steal control from you at the moment of the cycle end, it will, and there's nothing you can do about it except assigning your process realtime priority.
You may also have a look at this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms838340(WinEmbedded.5).aspx
Several frameworks were developed to do hard realtime on windows.
Otherwise, your question probably implies that you might be doing something wrong. There're numerous mechanisms to trick around ever needing precise delays, such as using proper bus drivers (in case of hardware/IO, or respective DMAs if you are designing a driver), and more.
Please tell us what exactly are you building.
I do not know your use case, but even a high end realtime operating system would be hard pressed to achieve less 100ns jitter on timings.
In most cases I found you do not need that precision in reproducibility but only for long time drift. In that respect it is relatively straightforward to keep a timeline and calculate the event on the desired precision. Then use that timeline to synchronize the events which may be off even by 10's of ms. As long as these errors do not add up, I found I got adequate performance.
If you need guaranteed latency, you cannot get it with MS Windows. It's not a realtime operating system. It might swap in another thread or process at an importune instant. You might get a cache miss. When I did a robot controller a while back, I used an OS called On Time RTOS 32. It has an MS Windows API emulation layer. You can use it with Visual Studio. You'll need something like that.
The resolution of a multimedia timer is much better than one second. It can go down to 1 millisecond when you call timeBeginPeriod(1) first. The timer will automatically adjust its interval for the next call when the callback is delivered late. Which is inevitable on a multi-tasking operating system, there is always some kind of kernel thread with a higher priority than yours that will delay the callback.
While it will work pretty well on average, worst case latency is in the order of hundreds of milliseconds. Clearly, your requirements cannot be met by Windows by a long shot. You'll need some kind of microcontroller to supply that kind of execution guarantee.