My understanding is that Windows is non-deterministic and can be trouble when using it for data acquisition. Using a 32bit bus, and dual core, is it possible to use inline asm to work with interrupts in Visual Studio 2005 or at least set some kind of flags to be consistent in time with little jitter?
Going the direction of an RTOS(real time operating system): Windows CE with programming in kernel mode may get too expensive for us.
Real time solutions for Windows such as LabVIEW Real-time or RTX are expensive; a stand-alone RTOS would often be less expensive (or even free), but if you need Windows functionality as well, you are perhaps no further forward.
If cost is critical, you might run a free or low-cost RTOS in a virtual machine. This can work, though there is no cooperation over hardware access between the RTOS and Windows, and no direct communication mechanism (you could use TCP/IP over a virtual (or real) network I suppose.
Another alternative is to perform the real-time data acquisition on stand-alone hardware (a microcontroller development board or SBC for example) and communicate with Windows via USB or TCP/IP for example. It is possible that way to get timing jitter down to the microsecond level or better.
There are third-party realtime extensions to Windows. See, e. g. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms838340(v=winembedded.5).aspx
Windows is not an RTOS, so there is no magic answer. However, there are some things you can do to make the system more "real time friendly".
Disable background processes that can steal system resources from you.
Use a multi-core processor to reduce the impact of context switching
If your program does any disk I/O, move that to its own spindle.
Look into process priority. Make sure your process is running as High or Realtime.
Pay attention to how your program manages memory. Avoid doing thigs that will lead to excessive disk paging.
Consider a real-time extension to Windows (already mentioned).
Consider moving to a real RTOS.
Consider dividing your system into two pieces: (1) real time component running on a microcontroller/DSP/FPGA, and (2) The user interface portion that runs on the Windows PC.
Related
I'm in a need to develop an audio device driver for System Audio Capture(based on Soundflower). But soon a problem appeared that it seems IOAudioFamily stack is being deprecated in OSX 10.10 and later. Looking through the IOAudioDevice and IOAudioEngine header files it seems that apple recommends now using the <CoreAudio/AudioServerPlugIn.h> API which runs in user-space. But I can't find lots of information on this user-space device drivers topic. It seems that the only resource is the Apple provided sample devices from https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/content/samplecode/AudioDriverExamples/Introduction/Intro.html
Looking through the examples I find that its a lot harder and more work to develop a user-space driver instead of I/O Kit kernel based.
So the question arises what should motivate to develop a device driver in user-space instead of kernel space?
The "SimpleAudioDriver" example is somewhat misnamed. It demonstrates pretty much every feature of the API. This is handy as a reference if you actually need to use those features. It's also structured in a way that's maybe a little more complicated than necessary.
For a virtual device, the NullAudioDriver is probably a much better base, and much, much easier to understand (single source file, if I remember correctly). SimpleAudioDriver is more useful for dealing with issues such as hotplugging, multiple instances of identical devices, etc.
IOAudioEngine is deprecated as you say, and has been since OS X 10.10. Expect it to go away eventually, so if you build your driver with it, you'll probably need to rewrite it sooner than if you create a Core Audio Server Plugin based one.
Testing and debugging audio drivers is awkward either way (due to being so time sensitive), but I'd say userspace ones are slightly less frustrating to deal with. You'll still want to test on a different machine than your development Mac, because if coreaudiod crashes or hangs, apps usually start locking up too, so being able to just ssh in, delete your plugin and kill coreaudiod is handy. Certainly quicker turnaround than having to reboot.
(FWIW, I've shipped both kernel and userspace OS X audio drivers, and I spend a lot of time working on kexts.)
There is a great book on this subject, available free online here:
http://free-electrons.com/doc/books/ldd3.pdf
See page 37 for a summary of why you might want a user-space driver, copied here for convenience:
The advantages of user-space drivers are:
The full C library can be linked in. The driver can perform many exotic tasks without resorting to external programs (the utility
programs implementing usage policies that are usually distributed
along with the driver itself).
The programmer can run a conventional debugger on the driver code without having to go through contortions to debug a running kernel.
If a user-space driver hangs, you can simply kill it. Problems with the driver are unlikely to hang the entire system, unless the hardware
being controlled is really misbehaving.
User memory is swappable, unlike kernel memory. An infrequently used device with a huge driver won’t occupy RAM that other programs could
be using, except when it is actually in use.
A well-designed driver program can still, like kernel-space drivers, allow concurrent access to a device.
If you must write a closed-source driver, the user-space option makes it easier for you to avoid ambiguous licensing situations and
problems with changing kernel interfaces.
I was wondering if it is possible to run an executable program without adding to its source code, like running any game across several computers. When i was programming in c# i noticed a process method, which lets you summon or close any application or process, i was wondering if there was something similar with c++ which would let me transfer the processes of any executable file or game to other computers or servers minimizing my computer's processor consumption.
thanks.
Everything is possible, but this would require a huge amount of work and would almost for sure make your program painfully slower (I'm talking about a factor of millions or billions here). Essentially you would need to make sure every layer that is used in the program allows this. So you'd have to rewrite the OS to be able to do this, but also quite a few of the libraries it uses.
Why? Let's assume you want to distribute actual threads over different machines. It would be slightly more easy if it were actual processes, but I'd be surprised many applications work like this.
To begin with, you need to synchronize the memory, more specifically all non-thread-local storage, which often means 'all memory' because not all language have a thread-aware memory model. Of course, this can be optimized, for example buffer everything until you encounter an 'atomic' read or write, if of course your system has such a concept. Now can you imagine every thread blocking for synchronization a few seconds whenever a thread has to be locked/unlocked or an atomic variable has to be read/written?
Next to that there are the issues related to managing devices. Assume you need a network connection: which device will start this, how will the ip be chosen, ...? To seamlessly solve this you probably need a virtual device shared amongst all platforms. This has to happen for network devices, filesystems, printers, monitors, ... . And as you kindly mention games: this should happen for a GPU as well, just imagine how this would impact performance in only sending data from/to the GPU (hint: even 16xpci-e is often already a bottleneck).
In conclusion: this is not feasible, if you want a clustered application, you have to build it into the application from scratch.
I believe the closest thing you can do is MapReduce: it's a paradigm which hopefully will be a part of the official boost library soon. However, I don't think that you would want to apply it to a real-time application like a game.
A related question may provide more answers: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2168558/is-there-anything-like-hadoop-in-c
But as KillianDS pointed out, there is no automagical way to do this, nor does it seem like is there a feasible way to do it. So what is the exact problem that you're trying to solve?
The current state of research is into practical means to distribute the work of a process across multiple CPU cores on a single computer. In that case, these processors still share RAM. This is essential: RAM latencies are measured in nanoseconds.
In distributed computing, remote memory access can take tens if not hundreds of microseconds. Distributed algorithms explicitly take this into account. No amount of magic can make this disappear: light itself is slow.
The Plan 9 OS from AT&T Bell Labs supports distributed computing in the most seamless and transparent manner. Plan 9 was designed to take the Unix ideas of breaking jobs into interoperating small tasks, performed by highly specialised utilities, and "everything is a file", as well as the client/server model, to a whole new level. It has the idea of a CPU server which performs computations for less powerful networked clients. Unfortunately the idea was too ambitious and way beyond its time and Plan 9 remained largerly a research project. It is still being developed as open source software though.
MOSIX is another distributed OS project that provides a single process space over multiple machines and supports transparent process migration. It allows processes to become migratable without any changes to their source code as all context saving and restoration are done by the OS kernel. There are several implementations of the MOSIX model - MOSIX2, openMosix (discontinued since 2008) and LinuxPMI (continuation of the openMosix project).
ScaleMP is yet another commercial Single System Image (SSI) implementation, mainly targeted towards data processing and Hight Performance Computing. It not only provides transparent migration between the nodes of a cluster but also provides emulated shared memory (known as Distributed Shared Memory). Basically it transforms a bunch of computers, connected via very fast network, into a single big NUMA machine with many CPUs and huge amount of memory.
None of these would allow you to launch a game on your PC and have it transparently migrated and executed somewhere on the network. Besides most games are GPU intensive and not so much CPU intensive - most games are still not even utilising the full computing power of multicore CPUs. We have a ScaleMP cluster here and it doesn't run Quake very well...
I developed a program in c++ and when I run it in windows XP it uses all the available CPU to 100% of usage but when I run the application in windows 7 the app could hardly makes it's way to 40% even by setting the task to real-time or high priority one in taskbar is there a way that I could force the OS to let my application use maximum available CPU like what was in winXP in my code. I mean something like APIs or a library.
This is more than likely due to you having more than one core. In order to use 100% of your CPU you may need to have multiple threads created.
If your app is using any kind of IO, and that IO is messed up in XP (bad driver and/or something else), that might be causing your app to spin the CPU entirely.
7 is maybe better optimized in such areas, so it frees the CPU until slow (disk, network) stuff is completed.
Also depending on what this thread is doing and how often it spends time off the processor (Sleep, object waits) can be a factor, but MK pretty much summed it up for you. You could also have a look here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686277%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
I have this weird question.
I would like to know if it is possible to make a program in C/C++ that will run on Linux or Windows and will hook interrupt handler on a system timer set to specific period (2000 times per second, for example) and I want this interrupt to be with highest priority, meaning that it has to be executed every half millisecond and while executing it must not be interrupted.
This we have done with MS-DOS with Borland Turbo C 3.1. We have an interface card (our own) that runs on ISA slot. Every half millisecond, our program reads the state of electronics that is controlling an industrial process thru the interface. This has worked for us in the past 15 years, but we are running out of motherboards that have ISA slot, so we are looking for new solutions.
We also have solution based on PIC microcontrollers, but our horizons will be widened with general purpose processor.
My guess is that there are some customized Linux kernels for embedded applications, so I am looking for some sources with which we can start experimenting.
Yes, you can do that in MS-DOS because it is not a multi-user or multi-tasking operating system. However, the same thing will not work in Windows because it is a mult-user and multi-tasking operating system. It's also not real-time, which means there's no guarantee that your task will be executed exactly when you ask for it to be executed. Everything is pre-emptively scheduled, meaning that any number of other processes and tasks (either user-mode or system-level) could effectively "bump" your process down the priority list and force it to wait to be executed until those other tasks completed or were themselves interrupted to give your process a chance to run for a while.
I don't know about Linux, but I imagine most of the major distributions are written similarly to Windows.
You will need to find a real-time, single-user operating system to do this. A Unix-derivative is probably the best place to start looking, but I won't be the person able to suggest one.
Alternatively, you could continue using MS-DOS (or alternatives such as FreeDOS), but switch to a different interface technology that is available on newer boards. There's no reason to update something that works for you, especially if the updates are counter-productive to your goal.
A typical OS such as a standard Linux or Windows is not designed to, and will not be able to perform to that degree of real-time accuracy and availability.
It sounds to me like you need to be investigating Real-Time Linux, or similar.
RTLinux is a modified version of the Linux Kernel which is designed to perform in real-time, precicely for applications such as this.
Hope that helps.
Personal and affordable computing has increased in performance incredibly over the years, except in one area, low latency. Latency has actually increased in many use cases when you compare a 486 and a modern desktop CPU.
That said, have a look at this paper, where the authors come to the conclusion that sub-millisecond scheduling is possible in Linux on commodity hardware.
We'd like to support some hardware that has recently been discontinued. The driver for the hardware is a plain 32-bit C DLL. We don't have the source code, and (for legal reasons) are not interested in decompiling or reverse engineering the driver.
The hardware sends tons of data quickly, so the communication protocol needs to be pretty efficient.
Our software is a native 64-bit C++ app, but we'd like to access the hardware via a 32-bit process. What is an efficient, elegant way for 32-bit and 64-bit applications to communicate with each other (that, ideally, doesn't involve inventing a new protocol)?
The solution should be in C/C++.
Update: several respondents asked for clarification whether this was a user-mode or kernel-mode driver. Fortunately, it's a user-mode driver.
If this is a real driver (kernel mode), you're SOL. Vista x64 doesn't allow installing unsigned drivers. It this is just a user-mode DLL, you can get a fix by using any of the standard IPC mechanisms. Pipes, sockets, out-of-proc COM, roughly in that order. It all operates on bus speeds so as long as you can buffer enough data, the context switch overhead shouldn't hurt too much.
I would just use sockets. It would allow you to use it over IP if you need it in the future, and you won't be tied down to one messaging API. If in the future you wish to implement this on another OS or language, you can.
This article might be of interest. It discusses the problem and then suggests using COM as a solution. I'm not a big fan of COM but given its ubiquity in the Windows universe, it's possible that it might be efficient enough. You will probably want to architect your solution so that you can batch data (you don't want to do one COM call for each item of data).
Elegant? C++? DCOM/RPC calls to yourself might work, or you could create a named pipe and use that to talk between the two processes (maybe create a "CMessage class" or something), though watch out for different structure alignment between x86 and x64.
If the driver does turn out to be a real driver, nobugz is almost right -- you're going to have to work a lot harder, you're not completely SOL. One solution is to install Win32 on some other machine (or virtual machine) and then use some form of RPC, such as sockets (as suggested by Pyrolistical) or UDP or MQ or even Tibco Rendezvous (which claims to support very high throughput in order to handle the volumes of data generated by the financial markets -- at least that's what I remember from back in the old days).
A memory-mapped file, shared by both sides would have the same contents. The OS will have to do some interesting pointer stuff to make it happen, but quite likely will be able to setup the 2 views in such a way that you're not physically copying memory around. Zero copies is about as good as it gets