In my current project, I have two levels of tasking, in a VxWorks system, a higher priority (100) task for number crunching and other work and then a lower priority (200) task for background data logging to on-board flash memory. Logging is done using the fwrite() call, to a file stored on a TFFS file system. The high priority task runs at a periodic rate and then sleeps to allow background logging to be done.
My expectation was that the background logging task would run when the high priority task sleeps and be preempted as soon as the high priority task wakes.
What appears to be happening is a significant delay in suspending the background logging task once the high priority task is ready to run again, when there is sufficient data to keep the logging task continuously occupied.
What could delay the pre-emption of a lower priority task under VxWorks 6.8 on a Power PC architecture?
You didn't quantify significant, so the following is just speculation...
You mention writing to flash. One of the issue is that writing to flash typically requires the driver to poll the status of the hardware to make sure the operation completes successfully.
It is possible that during certain operations, the file system temporarily disables preemption to insure that no corruption occurs - coupled with having to wait for hardware to complete, this might account for the delay.
If you have access to the System Viewer tool, that would go a long way towards identifying the cause of the delay.
I second the suggestion of using the System Viewer, It'll show all the tasks involved in TFFS stack and you may be surprised how many layers there are. If you're making an fwrite with a large block of data, the flash access may be large (and slow as Benoit said). You may try a bunch of smaller fwrites. I suggest doing a test to see how long fwrites() take for various sizes, and you may see differences from test to test with the same sizea as you cross flash block boundaries.
Related
I am considering a programming project. Will run under Ubuntu or other Linux OS on a small board. Quad core x86 - N-Series Pentium. The software generates 8 fast signals; square wave pulse trains for stepper motor motion control of 4 axes. Step signals being 50-100 KHz maximum, but usually slower. Want to avoid jitter in these stepping signals (call it good fidelity), so that around 1-2us for each thread loop cycle would be a nice target. The program does other kinds of tasks, like read/write hard drive, Ethernet, continues update on the graphics display, keyboard. The existing Single core programs just can not process motion signals with this kind of timing and require external hardware/techniques to achieve this.
I have been reading other posts here, like on a thread running selected core, continuously. The exact meaning in these posts is "lose", not sure really what is meant. Continuous might mean testing every minute or ?????
So, I might be wordy, but it will clear I hope. The considered program has all the threads, routines, memory, shared memory all included. I am not considering that this program launches another program or service. Other threads are written in this program and launched when the program starts up. I will call this signal generating thread the FAST THREAD.
The FAST THREAD is to be launched to an otherwise "free" core. It needs to be the only thread that runs on the core. Hopefully, the OS thread scheduler component on that core can be "turned off", so that it does not even interrupt on that core to decide what thread runs next. In looking at the processor manual, Each core has a counter timer chip. Is it possible then that I can use it to provide a continuous train of interrupts then into my "locked in" FAST THREAD for timing purposes? This is the range of about 1-2 us. If not, then just reading one channel on that CTC to provide software sync. This fast thread will, therefore, see (experience) no delays from the interrupts issued in the other cores and associated multicore fabric. This FAST THREAD, when running, will continue to run until the program closes. This could be hours.
Input data to drive this FAST THREAD will be common shared memory defined in the program. There are also hardware signals for motion limits (From GPIOs or SDI port). If any go TRUE, that forces a programmed halt all motion. It does not need a 1~2us response. It could go to a slower Motion loop.
Ah, the output:
Some motion data is written back to the shared memory (assigned for this purpose). Like current location, and current loop number,
Some signals need to be output (the 8 outputs). There are numerous free GPIOs. Not sure of the path taken to get the signaled GPIO pin to change the output. The system call to Linux initiates the pin change event. There is also an SDI port available, running up to the 25Mhz clock. It seems these ports (GPIO, UART, USB, SDI) exist in the fabric that is not on any specific core. I am not sure of the latency from the issuance of these signals in the program until the associated external pin actually presents that signal. In the fast thread, even 10us would be OK, if it was always the same latency! I know that will not be so, there will jitter. I need to think on this spec.
There will possibly be a second dedicated core (similar to above) for slower motion planning. That leaves two cores for everything thing else. Since then everything else items (sata, video screen, keyboard ...) are already able to work in a single core, then the remaining two cores should be great.
At close of program, the FAST THREAD returns the CTC and any other device on its core back to "as it was", re-enables the OS components in this core to their more normal operation. End of thread.
Concluding: I have described the overall program, so as for you to understand what I want to do with this FAST THREAD running, how responsive it needs to be, and that it needs to be undisturbed!! This processor runs in the 1.5 ~ 2.0 GHz range. It certainly can do the repeated calculations in the required time frame.
DESIRED: I do not know the system calls that would allow me to use a selected x86 core in this way. Any pointers would be helpful. Any manual or document that described these calls/procedures.
Can this use of a core also be done in windows 7,10)?
Thanks for reading and any pointers you have.
Stan
New description of the problem:
I currently run our new data acquisition software in a test environment. The software has two main threads. One contains a fast loop which communicates with the hardware and pushes the data into a dual buffer. Every few seconds, this loop freezes for 200 ms. I did several tests but none of them let me figure out what the software is waiting for. Since the software is rather complex and the test environment could interfere too with the software, I need a tool/technique to test what the recorder thread is waiting for while it is blocked for 200 ms. What tool would be useful to achieve this?
Original question:
In our data acquisition software, we have two threads that provide the main functionality. One thread is responsible for collecting the data from the different sensors and a second thread saves the data to disc in big blocks. The data is collected in a double buffer. It typically contains 100000 bytes per item and collects up to 300 items per second. One buffer is used to write to in the data collection thread and one buffer is used to read the data and save it to disc in the second thread. If all the data has been read, the buffers are switched. The switch of the buffers seems to be a major performance problem. Each time the buffer switches, the data collection thread blocks for about 200 ms, which is far too long. However, it happens once in a while, that the switching is much faster, taking nearly no time at all. (Test PC: Windows 7 64 bit, i5-4570 CPU #3.2 GHz (4 cores), 16 GB DDR3 (800 MHz)).
My guess is, that the performance problem is linked to the data being exchanged between cores. Only if the threads run on the same core by chance, the exchange would be much faster. I thought about setting the thread affinity mask in a way to force both threads to run on the same core, but this also means, that I lose real parallelism. Another idea was to let the buffers collect more data before switching, but this dramatically reduces the update frequency of the data display, since it has to wait for the buffer to switch before it can access the new data.
My question is: Is there a technique to move data from one thread to another which does not disturb the collection thread?
Edit: The double buffer is implemented as two std::vectors which are used as ring buffers. A bool (int) variable is used to tell which buffer is the active write buffer. Each time the double buffer is accessed, the bool value is checked to know which vector should be used. Switching the buffers in the double buffer just means toggling this bool value. Of course during the toggling all reading and writing is blocked by a mutex. I don't think that this mutex could possibly be blocking for 200 ms. By the way, the 200 ms are very reproducible for each switch event.
Locking and releasing a mutex just to switch one bool variable will not take 200ms.
Main problem is probably that two threads are blocking each other in some way.
This kind of blocking is called lock contention. Basically this occurs whenever one process or thread attempts to acquire a lock held by another process or thread. Instead parallelism you have two thread waiting for each other to finish their part of work, having similar effect as in single threaded approach.
For further reading I recommend this article for a read, which describes lock contention with more detailed level.
Since you are running on windows maybe you use visual studio? if yes I would resort to VS profiler which is quite good (IMHO) in such cases, once you don't need to check data/instruction caches (then the Intel's vTune is a natural choice). From my experience VS is good enough to catch contention problems as well as CPU bottlenecks. you can run it directly from VS or as standalone tool. you don't need the VS installed on your test machine you can just copy the tool and run it locally.
VSPerfCmd.exe /start:SAMPLE /attach:12345 /output:samples - attach to process 12345 and gather CPU sampling info
VSPerfCmd.exe /detach:12345 - detach from process
VSPerfCmd.exe /shutdown - shutdown the profiler, the samples.vsp is written (see first line)
then you can open the file and inspect it in visual studio. if you don't see anything making your CPU busy switch to contention profiling - just change the "start" argument from "SAMPLE" to "CONCURRENCY"
The tool is located under %YourVSInstallDir%\Team Tools\Performance Tools\, AFAIR it is available from VS2010
Good luck
After discussing the problem in the chat, it turned out that the Windows Performance Analyser is a suitable tool to use. The software is part of the Windows SDK and can be opened using the command wprui in a command window. (Alois Kraus posted this useful link: http://geekswithblogs.net/akraus1/archive/2014/04/30/156156.aspx in the chat). The following steps revealed what the software had been waiting on:
Record information with the WPR using the default settings and load the saved file in the WPA.
Identify the relevant thread. In this case, the recording thread and the saving thread obviously had the highest CPU load. The saving thread could be easily identified. Since it saves data to disc, it is the one that with file access. (Look at Memory->Hard Faults)
Check out Computation->CPU usage (Precise) and select Utilization by Process, Thread. Select the process you are analysing. Best display the columns in the order: NewProcess, ReadyingProcess, ReadyingThreadId, NewThreadID, [yellow bar], Ready (µs) sum, Wait(µs) sum, Count...
Under ReadyingProcess, I looked for the process with the largest Wait (µs) since I expected this one to be responsible for the delays.
Under ReadyingThreadID I checked each line referring to the thread with the delays in the NewThreadId column. After a short search, I found a thread that showed frequent Waits of about 100 ms, which always showed up as a pair. In the column ReadyingThreadID, I was able to read the id of the thread the recording loop was waiting for.
According to its CPU usage, this thread did basically nothing. In our special case, this led me to the assumption that the serial port io command could cause this wait. After deactivating them, the delay was gone. The important discovery was that the 200 ms delay was in fact composed of two 100 ms delays.
Further analysis showed that the fetch data command via the virtual serial port pair gets sometimes lost. This might be linked to very high CPU load in the data saving and compression loop. If the fetch command gets lost, no data is received and the first as well as the second attempt to receive the data timed out with their 100 ms timeout time.
I have a data acquisition application running on Windows 7, using VC2010 in C++. One thread is a heartbeat which sends out a change every .2 seconds to keep-alive some hardware which has a timeout of about .9 seconds. Typically the heartbeat call takes 10-20ms and the thread spends the rest of the time sleeping.
Occasionally however there will be a delay of 1-2 seconds and the hardware will shut down momentarily. The heartbeat thread is running at THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL which is 15 for a normal priority process. My other threads are running at normal priority, although I use a DLL to control some other hardware and have noticed with Process Explorer that it starts several threads running at level 15.
I can't track down the source of the slow down but other theads in my application are seeing the same kind of delays when this happens. I have made several optimizations to the heartbeat code even though it is quite simple, but the occasional failures are still happening. Now I wonder if I can increase the priority of this thread beyond 15 without specifying REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS for the entire process. If not, are there any downsides I should be aware of to using REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS? (Other than this heartbeat thread, the rest of the application doesn't have real-time timing needs.)
(Or does anyone have any ideas about how to track down these slowdowns...not sure if the source could be in my app or somewhere else on the system).
Update: So I hadn't actually tried passing 31 into my AfxBeginThread call and turns out it ignores that value and sets the thread to normal priority instead of the 15 that I get with THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL.
Update: Turns out running the Disk Defragmenter is a good way to cause lots of thread delays. Even running the process at REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS and the heartbeat thread at THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL (level 31) doesn't seem to help. Next thing to try is calling AvSetMmThreadCharacteristics("Pro Audio")
Update: Scheduling heartbeat thread as "Pro Audio" does work to increase the thread's priority beyond 15 (Base=1, Dynamic=24) but it doesn't seem to make any real difference when defrag is running. I've been able to correlate many of the slowdowns with the disk defragmenter so turned off the weekly scan. Still can't explain some delays so we're going to increase to a 5-10 second watchdog timeout.
Even if you could, increasing the priority will not help. The highest priority runnable thread gets the processor at all times.
Most likely there is some extended interrupt processing occurring while interrupts are disabled. Interrupts effectively work at a higher priority than any thread.
It could be video, network, disk, serial, USB, etc., etc. It will take some insight to selectively disable or use an alternate driver to see if the problem system hesitation is affected. Once you find that, then figuring out a way to prevent it might range from trivial to impossible depending on what it is.
Without more knowledge about the system, it is hard to say. Have you tried running it on a different PC?
Officially you can't use REALTIME threads in a process which does not have the REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS.
Unoficially you could play with the undocumented NtSetInformationThread
see:
http://undocumented.ntinternals.net/UserMode/Undocumented%20Functions/NT%20Objects/Thread/NtSetInformationThread.html
But since I have not tried it, I don't have any more info about this.
On the other hand, as it was said before, you can never be sure that the OS will not take its time when your thread's quantum will expire. Certain poorly written drivers are often the cause of such latency.
Otherwise there is a software which can tell you if you have misbehaving kernel parts:
http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml
I would try using CreateWaitableTimer() & SetWaitableTimer() and see if they are subject to the same preemption problems.
I am writing to USB disk from a lowest priority thread, using chunked buffer writing and still, from time to time the system in overall lags on this operation. If I disable writing to disk only, everything works fine. I can't use Windows file operations API calls, only C write. So I thought maybe there is a WinAPI function to turn on/off USB disk write caching which I could use in conjunction with FlushBuffers or similar alternatives? The number of drives for operations is undefined.
Ideally I would like to never be lagging using write call and the caching, if it will be performed transparently is ok too.
EDIT: would _O_SEQUENTIAL flag on write only operations be of any use here?
Try to reduce I/O priority for the thread.
See this article: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686277(v=vs.85).aspx
In particular use THREAD_MODE_BACKGROUND_BEGIN for your IO thread.
Warning: this doesn't work in Windows XP
The thread priority won't affect the delay that happens in the process of writing the media, because it's done in the kernel mode by the file system/disk drivers that don't pay attention to the priority of the calling thread.
You might try to use "T" flag (_O_SHORTLIVED) and flush the buffers at the end of the operation, also try to decrease the buffer size.
There are different types of data transfer for USB, for data there are 3:
1.Bulk Transfer,
2.Isochronous Transfer, and
3.Interrupt Transfer.
Bulk Transfers Provides:
Used to transfer large bursty data.
Error detection via CRC, with guarantee of delivery.
No guarantee of bandwidth or minimum latency.
Stream Pipe - Unidirectional
Full & high speed modes only.
Bulk transfer is good for data that does not require delivery in a guaranteed amount of time The USB host controller gives a lower priority to bulk transfer than the other types of transfer.
Isochronous Transfers Provides:
Guaranteed access to USB bandwidth.
Bounded latency.
Stream Pipe - Unidirectional
Error detection via CRC, but no retry or guarantee of delivery.
Full & high speed modes only.
No data toggling.
Isochronous transfers occur continuously and periodically. They typically contain time sensitive information, such as an audio or video stream. If there were a delay or retry of data in an audio stream, then you would expect some erratic audio containing glitches. The beat may no longer be in sync. However if a packet or frame was dropped every now and again, it is less likely to be noticed by the listener.
Interrupt Transfers Provides:
Guaranteed Latency
Stream Pipe - Unidirectional
Error detection and next period retry.
Interrupt transfers are typically non-periodic, small device "initiated" communication requiring bounded latency. An Interrupt request is queued by the device until the host polls the USB device asking for data.
From the above, it seems that you want a Guaranteed Latency, so you should use Isochronous mode. There are some libraries that you can use like libusb, or you can read more in msdn
To find out what is letting your system hang you first need to drill down to the Windows hang. What was Windows doing while you did experience the hang?
To find this out you can take a kernel dump. How to get and analyze a Kernel Dump read here.
Depending on the findings you get there you then need to decide if there is anything under your control you can do about. Since you are using a third party library to to the writing there is little you can do except to set the IO priority, thread priority on thread or process level. If the library you were given links against a specific CRT you could try to build your own customized version of it to e.g. flush after every write to prevent write combining by the OS to write only data in big chunks back to disc.
Edit1
Your best bet would be to flush the device after every write. This could force the OS to flush any pending data and write the current pending writes to disc without caching the writes up to certain amount.
The second best thing would be to simply wait after each write to give the OS the chance to write pending changes though small back to disc after a certain time interval.
If you are deeper into performance you should try out XPerf which has a nice GUI and shows you even the call stack where your process did hang. The Windows Team and many other teams at MS use this tool to troubleshoot hang experiences. The latest edition with many more features comes with the Windows 8 SDK. But beware that Xperf only works on OS > Vista.
Given: multithreaded (~20 threads) C++ application under RHEL 5.3.
When testing under load, top shows that CPU usage jumps in range 10-40% every second.
The design mostly pretty simple - most of the threads implement active object design pattern: thread has a thread-safe queue, requests from other queues are pushed to the queue, while the thread only polling on the queue and process incomming requests. Processed request causes to a new request to be pushed to next processing thread.
The process has several TCP/UDP connection over each a data is received/sent in a high load.
I know I did not provided sufficiant data. This is pretty big application, and I'n not familiar well with all it's parts. It's now ported from Windows on Linux over ACE library (used for networking part).
Suppusing the problem is in the application and not external one, what are the techicues/tools/approaches can be used to discover the problem. For example I suspect that this maybe caused by some mutex contention.
I have faced similar problem some time back and here are the steps that helped me.
1) Start with using strace to see where the application is spending the time executing system calls.
2) Use OProfile to profile both the application and the kernel.
3) If you are using an SMP system , look at the numa settings,
In my case that caused a havoc .
/proc/appPID/numa_maps will give a quick look at how the access to the memory is happening.
numa misses can cause the jumps.
4) You have mentioned about TCP connections in your app.
Look at the MTU size and see its set to right value and
Depending upon the type of Data getting transferred use the Nagles Delay appropriately.
Nagles Delay