I want to run a function for example func() exactly 1 time per second. However the running time of func() is about 500 ms. How Can I do that? I know if the running time of the function is low, I can write a while loop in func() and sleep() for 1 second after each execution. But now, the running time is high. What should I do to ensure the func() run exactly 1 time per second? Thanks.
Yo do:
Take the current time in start_time.
Perform your job
Take the current time in end_time
Wait for (1 second + start_time - end_time)
That way, you can perform your tasks every seconds reliably. If the task takes less time, you will wait longer and vice versa. Note however that this assumes that your task takes always less than 1 sec. to execute. In the real code, you want to check for that before the sleep statement.
Implementation details depend on the platform.
Note that using this method still results in a small drift due to the time it takes to compute step 4. A more accurate alternative would be to synchronize on integer multiple of one second. That way, over 1000s of cycles you would not drift.
It depends on the level of accuracy you need.
If you want a brute, easy to code solution, you can get the time before first run of the function and save it in some variable (start_time). Create repeat index count variable (repeat_number) that stores next repeat number. Then you can do kinda this:
1) next_run_time = ++repeat_number*1sec + start_time;
2) func();
3) wait_time = next_run_time - current_time;
4) sleep(wait_time)
5) goto 1;
This approach disables accumulation of time error on each iteration.
But for the real application you should find some event framework or library.
Related
I am trying to measure the execution time of FIO benchmark. I am, currently, doing so wrapping the FIO call between gettimeofday():
gettimeofday(&startFioFix, NULL);
FILE* process = popen("fio --name=randwrite --ioengine=posixaio rw=randwrite --size=100M --direct=1 --thread=1 --bs=4K", "r");
gettimeofday(&doneFioFix, NULL);
and calculate the elapsed time as:
double tstart = startFioFix.tv_sec + startFioFix.tv_usec / 1000000.;
double tend = doneFioFix.tv_sec + doneFioFix.tv_usec / 1000000.;
double telapsed = (tend - tstart);
Now, the question(s) is
telapsed time is different (larger) than the runt by FIO output. Can you please help me in understanding Why? as the fact can be seen in FIO output:
randwrite: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=posixaio, iodepth=1
fio-2.2.8
Starting 1 thread
randwrite: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=3862: Tue Nov 1 18:07:50 2016
write: io=102400KB, bw=91674KB/s, iops=22918, runt= 1117msec
...
and the telapsed is:
telapsed: 1.76088 seconds
what is the actual time taken by FIO execution:
a) runt given by FIO, or
b) the elapsed time by getttimeofday()
How does FIO measure its runt? (probably, this question linked to 1.)
PS: I have tried to replace the gettimeofday(with std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now()), but it also behaves the same (by same, I mean it also gives larger elapsed time than runt)
Thank you in advance, for your time and assistance.
A quick point:gettimeofday() on Linux uses a clock that doesn't necessarily tick at a constant interval and can even move backwards (see http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/gettimeofday.2.html and https://stackoverflow.com/a/3527632/4513656 ) - this may make telapsed unreliable (or even negative).
Your gettimeofday/popen/gettimeofday measurement (telapsed) is going to be: the fio process start up (i.e. fork+exec on Linux) elapsed + fio initialisation (e.g. thread creation because I see --thread, ioengine initialisation) + fio job elapsed (runt) + fio stopping elapsed + process stop elapsed). You are comparing this to just runt which is a sub component of telapsed. It is unlikely all the non-runt components are going to happen instantly (i.e. take up 0 usecs) so the expectation is that runt will be smaller than telapsed. Try running fio with --debug=all just to see all the things it does in addition to actually submitting I/O for the job.
This is difficult to answer because it depends on what you want you mean when you say "fio execution" and why (i.e. the question is hard to interpret in an unambiguous way). Are you interested in how long fio actually spent trying to submit I/O for a given job (runt)? Are you interested in how long it takes your system to start/stop a new process that just so happens to try and submit I/O for a given period (telapsed)? Are you interested in how much CPU time was spent submitting I/O (none of the above)? So because I'm confused I'll ask you some questions instead: what are you going to use the result for and why?
Why not look at the source code? https://github.com/axboe/fio/blob/7a3b2fc3434985fa519db55e8f81734c24af274d/stat.c#L405 shows runt comes from ts->runtime[ddir]. You can see it is initialised by a call to set_epoch_time() (https://github.com/axboe/fio/blob/6be06c46544c19e513ff80e7b841b1de688ffc66/backend.c#L1664 ), is updated by update_runtime() ( https://github.com/axboe/fio/blob/6be06c46544c19e513ff80e7b841b1de688ffc66/backend.c#L371 ) which is called from thread_main().
I create a round of processes in erlang and wish to measure the time that it took for the first message to pass throigh the network and the entire message series, each time the first node gets the message back it sends another one.
right now in the first node i have the following code:
receive
stop->
io:format("all processes stopped!~n"),
true;
start->
statistics(runtime),
Son!{number, 1},
msg(PID, Son, M, 1);
{_, M} ->
{Time1, _} = statistics(runtime),
io:format("The last message has arrived after ~p! ~n",[Time1*1000]),
Son!stop;
of course i start the statistics when sending the first message.
as you can see i use the Time_Since_Last_Call for the first message loop and wish to use the Total_Run_Time for the entire run, the problem is that Total_Run_Time is accumulative since i start the statistics for the first time.
The second thought i had in mind is using another process with 2 receive loops getting the times for each one adding them and printing but i'm sure that erlang can do better than this.
i guess the best method to solve this is somehow flush the Total_Run_Time, but i couldn't find how this could be done. any ideas how this can be tackled?
One way to measure round-trip times would be to send a timestamp along with each message. When the first node receives the message, it can then measure the round-trip time, calculating Total_Run_Time - Timestamp.
To calculate the total run time, I would memorize the first timestamp in the process state (or dictionary), and calculate the total run time when stopping the test.
Besides, given that you mention the network, are you sure that the CPU time (which is what statistics(runtime) calculates is what you're after? Perhaps, wall clock time would be more appropriate.
I have a program that runs every 5 minutes when the stock market is open, which it does by running once, then entering the following function, which returns once 5 minutes has passed if the stock market is open.
What I don't understand, is that after a period of time, usually about 18 or 19 hours, it crashes returning a sigsegv error. I have no idea why, as it isn't writing to any memory - although I don't know much about the systemtime type, so maybe that's it?
Anyway, any help you could give would be very much appreciated! Thanks in advance!!
void KillTimeUntilNextStockDataReleaseOnWeb()
{
SYSTEMTIME tLocalTimeNow;
cout<<"\n*****CHECKING IF RUN HAS JUST COMPLETED OR NOT*****\n";
GetLocalTime(&tLocalTimeNow);//CHECK IF A RUN HAS JUST COMPLETED. IF SO, AWAIT NEXT 5 MINUTE MARK
while((tLocalTimeNow.wMinute % 5)==0)
GetLocalTime(&tLocalTimeNow);
cout<<"\n*****AWAITING 5 MINUTE MARK TO UPDATE STOCK DATA*****\n";
GetLocalTime(&tLocalTimeNow);//LOOP THROUGH THIS SECTION, CHECKING CURRENT TIME, UNTIL 5 MINUTE UPDATE. THEN PROCEED
while((tLocalTimeNow.wMinute % 5)!=0)
GetLocalTime(&tLocalTimeNow);
cout<<"\n*****CHECKING IF MARKET IS OPEN*****\n";
//CHECK IF STOCK MARKET IS EVEN OPEN. IF NOT, REPEAT
GetLocalTime(&tLocalTimeNow);
while((tLocalTimeNow.wHour < 8)||(tLocalTimeNow.wHour) > 17)
GetLocalTime(&tLocalTimeNow);
cout<<"\n*****PROGRAM CONTINUING*****\n";
return;
}
If you want to "wait for X seconds", then the Windows system call Sleep(x) will sleep for x milliseconds. Note however, if you sleep for, say, 300s, after some operation that took 3 seconds, that would mean you drift 3 seconds every 5minutes - it may not matter, but if it's critical that you keep the same timing all the time, you should figure out [based on time or some such function] how long it is to the next boundary, and then sleep that amount [possibly run a bit short and then add another check and sleep if you woke up early]. If "every five minutes" is more of an approximate thing, then 300s is fine.
There are other methods to wait for a given amount of time, but I suspect the above is sufficient.
Instead of using a busy loop, or even Sleep() in a loop, I would suggest using a Waitable Timer instead. That way, the calling thread can sleep effectively while it is waiting, while still providing a mechanism to "wake up" early if needed.
I hope someone could help me with this (And english is not my native language so I'm sorry in advance for any grammar or spelling mistakes):
As part of a project I'm coding, I need to time some commands. More specifically: I have 2 sets of commands (Lets call them set A and set B) - I need to to execute set A, then wait for a specific number of milliseconds (calculated in set A), then execute set B. I did it using the Sleep(time) command between the sets.
Now, I need to incorporate another set of commands (Set C) that will run in a loop in the time between the sets A and B instead of simply doing nothing. Meaning, instead of the time the program was idle before (waiting the specified number of milliseconds) I need it to loop the C set - but the catch is that it has to loop C exactly the same time it would have waited in the idle time.
How can I do this without using threads? (And generally keep it as simple as possible)
I guess the "work-time" for the set of commands in C is known. And C is a loop which can/shall finish when the wait time has expired.
In this case I'd suggest to use a performance counter to count down the wait time. Depending on what is calculated and what overhaed is introduced in C the accuracy to obtain can be in the microseconds range.
Pseudo code:
Delay = 1000
Do A
CounterBegin = GetCounter()
// and now the C loop
while ((GetCounter() - CounterBegin) < Delay) {
Do C
}
Do B
Note: The counter values are to be converted into times by using the counter frequency. See the link above to get the details.
Is there a way to limit iterations per time unit? For example, I have a loop like this:
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
// do stuff
}
I want to limit the loop above so there will be maximum of 30 iterations per second.
I would also like the iterations to be evenly positioned in the timeline so not something like 30 iterations in first 0.4s and then wait 0.6s.
Is that possible? It does not have to be completely precise (though the more precise it will be the better).
#FredOverflow My program is running
very fast. It is sending data over
wifi to another program which is not
fast enough to handle them at the
current rate. – Richard Knop
Then you should probably have the program you're sending data to send an acknowledgment when it's finished receiving the last chunk of data you sent then send the next chunk. Anything else will just cause you frustrations down the line as circumstances change.
Suppose you have a good Now() function (GetTickCount() is bad example, it's OS specific and has bad precision):
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++){
DWORD have_to_sleep_until = GetTickCount() + EXPECTED_ITERATION_TIME_MS;
// do stuff
Sleep(max(0, have_to_sleep_until - GetTickCount()));
};
You can check elapsed time inside the loop, but it may be not an usual solution. Because computation time is totally up to the performance of the machine and algorithm, people optimize it during their development time(ex. many game programmer requires at least 25-30 frames per second for properly smooth animation).
easiest way (for windows) is to use QueryPerformanceCounter(). Some pseudo-code below.
QueryPerformanceFrequency(&freq)
timeWanted = 1.0/30.0 //time per iteration if 30 iterations / sec
for i
QueryPerf(count1)
do stuff
queryPerf(count2)
timeElapsed = (double)(c2 - c1) * (double)(1e3) / double(freq) //time in milliseconds
timeDiff = timeWanted - timeElapsed
if (timeDiff > 0)
QueryPerf(c3)
QueryPerf(c4)
while ((double)(c4 - c3) * (double)(1e3) / double(freq) < timeDiff)
queryPerf(c4)
end for
EDIT: You must make sure that the 'do stuff' area takes less time than your framerate or else it doesn't matter. Also instead of 1e3 for milliseconds, you can go all the way to nanoseconds if you do 1e9 (if you want that much accuracy)
WARNING... this will eat your CPU but give you good 'software' timing... Do it in a separate thread (and only if you have more than 1 processor) so that any guis wont lock. You can put a conditional in there to stop the loop if this is a multi-threaded app too.
#FredOverflow My program is running very fast. It is sending data over wifi to another program which is not fast enough to handle them at the current rate. – Richard Knop
What you might need a buffer or queue at the receiver side. The thread that receives the messages from the client (like through a socket) get the message and put it in the queue. The actual consumer of the messages reads/pops from the queue. Of course you need concurrency control for your queue.
Besides the flow control methods mentioned, if you also have the need to maintain an accurate specific data sending rate in your sender part. Usually it can be done like this.
E.x. if you want to send at 10Mbps, create a timer of interval 1ms so it will call a predefined function every 1ms. Then in the timer handler function, by keep tracking of 2 static variables 1)Time elapsed since beginning of sending data 2)How much data in bytes have been sent up to last call, you can easily calculate how much data is needed to be sent in the current call (or just sleep and wait for next call).
By this way, you can do "streaming" of data in a very stable way with very little jitterness, and this is usually adopted in streaming of videos. Of course it also depends on how accurate the timer is.