I am currently implementing a PID controller for a project I am doing, but I realized I don't know how to ensure a fixed interval for each iteration. I want the PID controller to run at a frequency of 10Hz, but I don't want to use any sleep functions or anything that would otherwise slow down the thread it's running in. I've looked around but I cannot for the life of me find any good topics/functions that simply gives me an accurate measurement of milliseconds. Those that I have found simply uses time_t or clock_t, but time_t only seems to give seconds(?) and clock_t will vary greatly depending on different factors.
Is there any clean and good way to simply see if it's been >= 100 milliseconds since a given point in time in C++? I'm using the Qt5 framework and OpenCV library and the program is running on an ODROID X-2, if that's of any helpful information to anyone.
Thank you for reading, Christian.
I don't know much about the ODROID X-2 platform but if it's at all unixy you may have access to gettimeofday or clock_gettime either one of which would provide a higher resolution clock if available on your hardware.
Related
On Win32 system boost::date_time::microsec_clock() is implemented using ftime, which provides only millisecond resolution: Link to doc
There are some questions/answers on Stackoverflow stating this and linking the documentation, but not explaining why that is the case:
Stackoverflow #1
Stackoverflow #2
There seemingly are ways to implement microsecond resolution on Windows:
GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime (Win8++)
QueryPerformanceCounter
What I'm interested in is why Boost implemented it that way, when in turn there are possibly solutions that would be more fitting?
QueryPerformanceCounter can't help you on this problem. It gives you a timestamp, but as you don't know when the counter starts there is no reliable way to calculate an absolute time point out of it. boost::date_time is such a (user-understandable) time point.
The other difference is that a counter like QueryPerformanceCounter gives you a steadily increasing timer, while the system time can be influenced by the user and can therefore jump.
So the 2 things are for different use cases. One for representing a real time, the other one for getting precise timing in the software and for benchmarking.
GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime seems to fit the bill for a high resolution absolute time. I guess it wasn't used because it requires Windows8.
GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime only became available with Windows 8 Desktop applications. It mimics Linuxes GetTimeOfDay. The implementation uses QueryPerformanceCounter to achieve the microsecond resolution. Timestamps are taken at the time of a system time increment. Subsequent calls to GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime will take the system time and add the elapsed "performance counter time" (elapsed ticks / performance counter frequency) as the high resolution part.
The functionallity of QueryPerformanceCounter again depends on platform specific details (HPET, ACPI PM timer, invariant TSC etc.). See MSDN: Acquiring high-resolution time stamps and SO: Is QueryPerformanceFrequency acurate when using HPET? for details.
The various versions of Windows do have specific schemes to update the system time. Windows XP has a fixed file time granularty which is independent of the systems timer resolution. Only post Windows XP versions allow to modify the system time granularity by changing the system timer resolution.
This can be accomplished by means of the multimedia timer API timeBeginPeriod and/or the hidden API NtSetTimerResolution (See this SO answer for more details about using `
timeBeginPeriod and NtSetTimerResolution).
As stated, GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime is only available for desktop applications. The reason for this is the need for specific hardware.
What I'm interested in is why Boost implemented it that way, when in turn there are possibly solutions that would be more fitting?
Taking the facts stated above will make the implementation very complex and the result very platform specific. Every (!) Windows version has undergone severe changes of time keeping. Even the latest small step from 8 to 8.1 has changed the time keeping procedure considerably. However, there is still room to further improve time matters on Windows.
I should mention that GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime is, as of Windows 8.1, not giving results as accurate as expected or specified at MSDN: GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime function. It combines the system file time with the result of QueryPerformanceCounter to fill the gap between consecutive file time increments but it does not take system time adjustments into account. An active system time adjustement, e.g. done by SetSystemTimeAdjustment, modifies the system time granularity and the progress of the system time. However, the used performance counter frequency to build the result of GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime is kept constant. As a result, the microseconds part is off by the adjustment gain set by SetSystemTimeAdjustment.
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
I'm doing a article about GPU speed up in cluster environment
To do that, I'm programming in CUDA, that is basically a c++ extension.
But, as I'm a c# developer I don't know the particularities of c++.
There is some concern about logging elapsed time? Some suggestion or blog to read.
My initial idea is make a big loop and run the program several times. 50 ~ 100, and log every elapsed time to after make some graphics of velocity.
Depending on your needs, it can be as easy as:
time_t start = time(NULL);
// long running process
printf("time elapsed: %d\n", (time(NULL) - start));
I guess you need to tell how you plan this to be logged (file or console) and what is the precision you need (seconds, ms, us, etc). "time" gives it in seconds.
I would recommend using the boost timer library . It is platform agnostic, and is as simple as:
#include <boost/timer/timer.hpp>
boost::timer t;
// do some stuff, up until when you want to start timing
t.restart();
// do the stuff you want to time.
std::cout << t.elapsed() << std::endl;
Of course t.elapsed() returns a double that you can save to a variable.
Standard functions such as time often have a very low resolution. And yes, a good way to get around this is to run your test many times and take an average. Note that the first few times may be extra-slow because of hidden start-up costs - especially when using complex resources like GPUs.
For platform-specific calls, take a look at QueryPerformanceCounter on Windows and CFAbsoluteTimeGetCurrent on OS X. (I've not used POSIX call clock_gettime but that might be worth checking out.)
Measuring GPU performance is tricky because GPUs are remote processing units running separate instructions - often on many parallel units. You might want to visit Nvidia's CUDA Zone for a variety of resources and tools to help measure and optimize CUDA code. (Resources related to OpenCL are also highly relevant.)
Ultimately, you want to see how fast your results make it to the screen, right? For that reason, a call to time might well suffice for your needs.
I am curious if there is a build-in function in C++ for measuring the execution time?
I am using Windows at the moment. In Linux it's pretty easy...
The best way on Windows, as far as I know, is to use QueryPerformanceCounter and QueryPerformanceFrequency.
QueryPerformanceCounter(LARGE_INTEGER*) places the performance counter's value into the LARGE_INTEGER passed.
QueryPerformanceFrequency(LARGE_INTEGER*) places the frequency the performance counter is incremented into the LARGE_INTEGER passed.
You can then find the execution time by recording the counter as execution starts, and then recording the counter when execution finishes. Subtract the start from the end to get the counter's change, then divide by the frequency to get the time in seconds.
LARGE_INTEGER start, finish, freq;
QueryPerformanceFrequency(&freq);
QueryPerformanceCounter(&start);
// Do something
QueryPerformanceCounter(&finish);
std::cout << "Execution took "
<< ((finish.QuadPart - start.QuadPart) / (double)freq.QuadPart) << std::endl;
It's pretty easy under Windows too - in fact it's the same function on both std::clock, defined in <ctime>
You can use the Windows API Function GetTickCount() and compare the values at start and end. Resolution is in the 16 ms ballpark. If for some reason you need more fine-grained timings, you'll need to look at QueryPerformanceCounter.
C++ has no built-in functions for high-granularity measuring code execution time, you have to resort to platform-specific code. For Windows try QueryPerformanceCounter: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms644904(VS.85).aspx
The functions you should use depend on the resolution of timer you need. Some of them give 10ms resolutions. Those functions are easier to use. Others require more work, but give much higher resolution (and might cause you some headaches in some environments. Your dev machine might work fine, though).
http://www.geisswerks.com/ryan/FAQS/timing.html
This articles mentions:
timeGetTime
RDTSC (a processor feature, not an OS feature)
QueryPerformanceCounter
C++ works on many platforms. Why not use something that also works on many platforms, such as the Boost libraries.
Look at the documentation for the Boost Timer Library
I believe that it is a header-only library, which means that it is simple to setup and use...
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.