I have a while loop that runs in a do while loop. I need the while loop to run exactly every second no faster no slower. but i'm not sure how i would do that. this is the loop, off in its own function. I have heard of the sleep() function but I also have heard that it is not very accurate.
int min5()
{
int second = 00;
int minute = 0;
const int ZERO = 00;
do{
while (second <= 59){
if(minute == 5) break;
second += 1;
if(second == 60) minute += 1;
if(second == 60) second = ZERO;
if(second < 60) cout << "Current Time> "<< minute <<" : "<< second <<" \n";
}
} while (minute <= 5);
}
The best accuracy you can achieve is by using Operating System (OS) functions. You need to find the API that also has a callback function. The callback function is a function you write that the OS will call when the timer has expired.
Be aware that the OS may lose timing precision due to other tasks and activities that are running while your program is executing.
If you want a portable solution, you shouldn't expect high-precision timing. Usually, you only get that with a platform-dependent solution.
A portable (albeit not very CPU-efficient, nor particularly elegant) solution might make use of a function similar to this:
#include <ctime>
void wait_until_next_second()
{
time_t before = time(0);
while (difftime(time(0), before) < 1);
}
You'd then use this in your function like this:
int min5()
{
wait_until_next_second(); // synchronization (optional), so that the first
// subsequent call will not take less than 1 sec.
...
do
{
wait_until_next_second(); // waits approx. one second
while (...)
{
...
}
} while (...)
}
Some further comments on your code:
Your code gets into an endless loop once minute reaches the value 5.
Are you aware that 00 denotes an octal (radix 8) number (due to the leading zero)? It doesn't matter in this case, but be careful with numbers such as 017. This is decimal 15, not 17!
You could incorporate the seconds++ right into the while loop's condition: while (seconds++ <= 59) ...
I think in this case, it would be better to insert endl into the cout stream, since that will flush it, while inserting "\n" won't flush the stream. It doesn't truly matter here, but your intent seems to be to always see the current time on cout; if you don't flush the stream, you're not actually guaranteed to see the time message immediately.
As someone else posted, your OS may provide some kind of alarm or timer functionality. You should try to use this kind of thing rather than coding your own polling loop. Polling the time means you need to be context switched in every second, which keeps your code running when the system could be doing other stuff. In this case you interrupt someone else 300 times just to say "are we done yet".
Also, you should never make assumptions about the duration of a sleep - even if you had a real time OS this would be unsafe - you should always ask the real time clock or tick counter how much time has elapsed each time because otherwise any errors accumulate so you will get less and less accurate over time. This is true even on a real time system because even if a real time system could sleep accurately for 1 second, it takes some time for your code to run so this timing error would accumulate on each pass through the loop.
In Windows for example, there is a possibility to create a waitable timer object.
If that's Your operating system check the documentation here for example Waitable Timer Objects.
From the code You presented it looks like what You are trying to do can be done much easier with sleep. It doesn't make sense to guarantee that Your loop body is executed exactly every 1 second. Instead make it execute 10 times a second and check if the time that elapsed form the last time, You took some action, is more than a second or not. If not, do nothing. If yes, take action (print Your message, increment variables etc), store the time of last action and loop again.
Sleep(1000);
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms686298(VS.85).aspx
Related
I'm making a simple meteor and rocket game in the console. And I want to increase the spawnrate of the meteors every five seconds. I have already tried the Sleep() function but that will of course not work and sleep the whole application. So does a while loop.
I will only post the Logic() function where it must increase because it's a program
of like 100 lines and I didn't feel like posting it all in here. If you do need context just ask me and I will post everything.
void Logic() {
Sleep(5000); // TODO Increase meteors every Five seconds
nMeteors++;
}
I'm pretty stuck on this so it would be nice if someone could help me :)
There are mainly two ways to approach this problem. One would be to spawn a new thread and put the loop there. You can use C++11's standard libraries <thread> and <chrono. Putting the thread to sleep for 5 seconds is as simple as std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds{5});
But dedicating an entire thread to such a trivial task is unnecessary. In a videogame you usually have some sort of time keeping variable.
What you'd want to do is probably have a variable like std::chrono::time_point<std::chrono::steady_clock> previous_time = std::chrono::steady_clock::now(); (or simply auto previous_time = std::chrono::steady_clock::now()) outside of your loop. Now you have a reference point you can use to know where you are in time while running your loop. Inside of your loop you create another variable like auto current_time = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();, this is your current time. Now it's a simple matter of calculating the difference between current_time and previous_time and check if 5 seconds have passed. If they have, increase your variable and don't forget to set previous_time = current_time; to update the time, if not then just skip and keep doing whatever else you need to do in your main game loop.
To check if 5 seconds have passed, you do if (std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::seconds>(current_time - previous_time).count() >= 5) { ... }.
You can find a lot more info here for the chrono library and here for the thread library. Plus, Google is your friend.
The typical way to write a game is to have an event loop.
The event loop polls various inputs for status, updates the state of the game, and then repeats. Some clever event loops even sleep for short periods and get notifications when inputs change or state has to be updated.
In your meteor spawning code, keep track of a timestamp when the last increase in spawnrate occurred. When you check if a meteor should spawn or spawn meteors 5 seconds after that point, update the spawn rate and record a new timestamp (possibly retroactively, and possibly in a loop to handle more than 10 seconds passing between checks for whatever reason).
An alternative solution involving an extra thread of execution is possible, but not a good idea.
As an aside, most games want to support pausing; so you want to distinguish between wall-clock time and nominal game-play time.
One way you can do this is by making your value a function of elapsed time. For example:
// somewhere to store the beginning of the
// time period.
inline std::time_t& get_start_timer()
{
static std::time_t t{};
return t;
}
// Start a time period (resets meteors to zero)
inline void start_timer()
{
get_start_timer() = std::time(nullptr); // current time in seconds
}
// retrieve the current number of meteors
// as a function of time.
inline int nMeteors()
{
return int(std::difftime(std::time(nullptr), get_start_timer())) / 5;
}
int main()
{
start_timer();
for(;;)
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
std::cout << "meteors: " << nMeteors() << '\n';
}
}
Here is a similar version using C++11 <chrono> library:
// somewhere to store the beginning of the
// time period.
inline auto& get_time_point()
{
static std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point tp{};
return tp;
}
// Start a time period (resets meteors to zero)
inline void start_timing()
{
get_time_point() = std::chrono::steady_clock::now(); // current time in seconds
}
// retrieve the current number of meteors
// as a function of time.
inline auto nMeteors()
{
return std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::seconds>(std::chrono::steady_clock::now() - get_time_point()).count() / 5;
}
int main()
{
start_timing();
for(;;)
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
std::cout << "meteors: " << nMeteors() << '\n';
}
}
I found this easier than using chrono
Open to feedbacks:
Code:-
include "time.h"
main(){
int d;
time_t s,e;
time(&s);
time(&e);
d=e-s;
while(d<5){
cout<<d;
time(&e);
d=e-s;
}
}
This is my code using QueryPeformanceCounter as timer.
//timer.h
class timer {
private:
...
public:
...
double get(); //returns elapsed time in seconds
void start();
};
//a.cpp
void loop() {
timer t;
double tick;
double diff; //surplus seconds
t.start();
while( running ) {
tick = t.get();
if( tick >= 1.0 - diff ) {
t.start();
//things that should be run exactly every second
...
}
Sleep( 880 );
}
}
Without Sleep this loop would go on indefinitely calling t.get() every time which causes high CPU usage. For that reason, I make it sleep for about 880 milliseconds so that it wouldn't call t.get() while not necessary.
As I said above, I'm currently using Sleep to do the trick, but what I'm worried about is the accuracy of Sleep. I've read somewhere that the actual milliseconds the program pauses may vary - 20 to 50 ms - the reason I set the parameter to 880. I want to reduce the CPU usage as much as possible; I want to, if possible, pause more than 990 milliseconds EDIT: and yet less than 1000 milliseconds between every loop. What would be the best way to go?
I don't get why you are calling t.start() twice (it resets the clock?), but I would like to propose a kind of solution for the Sleep inaccuracy. Let's take a look at the content of while( running ) loop and follow the algorithm:
double future, remaining, sleep_precision = 0.05;
while (running) {
future = t.get() + 1.0;
things_that_should_be_run_exactly_every_second();
// the loop in case of spurious wakeup
for (;;) {
remaining = future - t.get();
if (remaining < sleep_precision) break;
Sleep(remaining);
}
// next, do the spin-lock for at most sleep_precision
while (t.get() < future);
}
The value of sleep_precision should be set empirically - OSes I know can't give you that.
Next, there are some alternatives of the sleeping mechanism that may better suit your needs - Is there an alternative for sleep() in C?
If you want to pause more than 990 milliseconds, write a sleep for 991 milliseconds. Your thread is guaranteed to be asleep for at least that long. It won't be less, but it could be multiples of 20-50ms more (depending on the resolution of your OS's time slicing, and on the the cost of context switching).
However, this will not give you something running "exactly every second". There is just no way to achieve that on a time-shared operating system. You'll have to program closer to the metal, or rely on an interrupt from a PPS source and just pray your OS lets you run your entire loop iteration in one shot. Or, I suppose, write something to run in kernel mode…?
I'm trying to determine if five seconds have passed in a console application since the last time I checked. I think my logic is slightly off and I don't know how to resolve it.
My lastCheck variable is firstly 0 when the program begins. It's responsible for holding the "old time".
LastCheck is updated by CheckSeconds(), which gives it a new "old time"
If the LastCheck was equal to 1232323, and the now variable is currently equal to 1227323 then I would know 5000 milliseconds have passed. (in reality, the numbers are much greater than this)
Else, I don't want anything to happen, I want to wait until these five seconds have actually passed.
BACKEND
inline std::vector<int> CheckSeconds(int previous, int timeinseconds)
{
//check if a certain amount of seconds have passed.
int now = GetTickCount();
int timepassed = 0;
std::vector<int> trueandnewtime;
//if the current time minus the old time is greater than 5000, then that means more than 5000 milliseoncds passed.
//therefore the timepassed is true.
if (now - previous > 5000)
timepassed = 1;
trueandnewtime.push_back(timepassed);
trueandnewtime.push_back(now);
return trueandnewtime;
}
FRONTEND
storage = CheckSeconds(LastCheck, 5);
LastCheck = storage.at(1);
if (storage.at(0) == 1)
{
....blahblahblah.....
}
Anyone know what I'm doing wrong? I must have a logic error somewhere or I'm being dumb.
Also worth noting, this code is in a while loop, getting constantly run at Sleep(60); It's a console application at the momemnt.
Appreciate any assistance.
Fixed it by putting the Lastcheck set into the loop.
Editor's clarification: When this was originally posted, there were two issues:
Test performance drops by a factor of three if seemingly inconsequential statement added
Time taken to complete the test appears to vary randomly
The second issue has been solved: the randomness only occurs when running under the debugger.
The remainder of this question should be understood as being about the first bullet point above, and in the context of running in VC++ 2010 Express's Release Mode with optimizations "Maximize Speed" and "favor fast code".
There are still some Comments in the comment section talking about the second point but they can now be disregarded.
I have a simulation where if I add a simple if statement into the while loop that runs the actual simulation, the performance drops about a factor of three (and I run a lot of calculations in the while loop, n-body gravity for the solar system besides other things) even though the if statement is almost never executed:
if (time - cb_last_orbital_update > 5000000)
{
cb_last_orbital_update = time;
}
with time and cb_last_orbital_update being both of type double and defined in the beginning of the main function, where this if statement is too. Usually there are computations I want to run there too, but it makes no difference if I delete them. The if statement as it is above has the same effect on the performance.
The variable time is the simulation time, it increases in 0.001 steps in the beginning so it takes a really long time until the if statement is executed for the first time (I also included printing a message to see if it is being executed, but it is not, or at least only when it's supposed to). Regardless, the performance drops by a factor of 3 even in the first minutes of the simulation when it hasn't been executed once yet. If I comment out the line
cb_last_orbital_update = time;
then it runs faster again, so it's not the check for
time - cb_last_orbital_update > 5000000
either, it's definitely the simple act of writing current simulation time into this variable.
Also, if I write the current time into another variable instead of cb_last_orbital_update, the performance does not drop. So this might be an issue with assigning a new value to a variable that is used to check if the "if" should be executed? These are all shots in the dark though.
Disclaimer: I am pretty new to programming, and sorry for all that text.
I am using Visual C++ 2010 Express, deactivating the stdafx.h precompiled header function didn't make a difference either.
EDIT: Basic structure of the program. Note that nowhere besides at the end of the while loop (time += time_interval;) is time changed. Also, cb_last_orbital_update has only 3 occurrences: Declaration / initialization, plus the two times in the if statement that is causing the problem.
int main(void)
{
...
double time = 0;
double time_interval = 0.001;
double cb_last_orbital_update = 0;
F_Rocket_Preset(time, time_interval, ...);
while(conditions)
{
Rocket[active].Stage[Rocket[active].r_stage].F_Update_Stage_Performance(time, time_interval, ...);
Rocket[active].F_Calculate_Aerodynamic_Variables(time);
Rocket[active].F_Calculate_Gravitational_Forces(cb_mu, cb_pos_d, time);
Rocket[active].F_Update_Rotation(time, time_interval, ...);
Rocket[active].F_Update_Position_Velocity(time_interval, time, ...);
Rocket[active].F_Calculate_Orbital_Elements(cb_mu);
F_Update_Celestial_Bodies(time, time_interval, ...);
if (time - cb_last_orbital_update > 5000000.0)
{
cb_last_orbital_update = time;
}
Rocket[active].F_Check_Apoapsis(time, time_interval);
Rocket[active].F_Status_Check(time, ...);
Rocket[active].F_Update_Mass (time_interval, time);
Rocket[active].F_Staging_Check (time, time_interval);
time += time_interval;
if (time > 3.1536E8)
{
std::cout << "\n\nBreak main loop! Sim Time: " << time << std::endl;
break;
}
}
...
}
EDIT 2:
Here is the difference in the assembly code. On the left is the fast code with the line
cb_last_orbital_update = time;
outcommented, on the right the slow code with the line.
EDIT 4:
So, i found a workaround that seems to work just fine so far:
int cb_orbit_update_counter = 1; // before while loop
if(time - cb_orbit_update_counter * 5E6 > 0)
{
cb_orbit_update_counter++;
}
EDIT 5:
While that workaround does work, it only works in combination with using __declspec(noinline). I just removed those from the function declarations again to see if that changes anything, and it does.
EDIT 6: Sorry this is getting confusing. I tracked down the culprit for the lower performance when removing __declspec(noinline) to this function, that is being executed inside the if:
__declspec(noinline) std::string F_Get_Body_Name(int r_body)
{
switch (r_body)
{
case 0:
{
return ("the Sun");
}
case 1:
{
return ("Mercury");
}
case 2:
{
return ("Venus");
}
case 3:
{
return ("Earth");
}
case 4:
{
return ("Mars");
}
case 5:
{
return ("Jupiter");
}
case 6:
{
return ("Saturn");
}
case 7:
{
return ("Uranus");
}
case 8:
{
return ("Neptune");
}
case 9:
{
return ("Pluto");
}
case 10:
{
return ("Ceres");
}
case 11:
{
return ("the Moon");
}
default:
{
return ("unnamed body");
}
}
}
The if also now does more than just increase the counter:
if(time - cb_orbit_update_counter * 1E7 > 0)
{
F_Update_Orbital_Elements_Of_Celestial_Bodies(args);
std::cout << F_Get_Body_Name(3) << " SMA: " << cb_sma[3] << "\tPos Earth: " << cb_pos_d[3][0] << " / " << cb_pos_d[3][1] << " / " << cb_pos_d[3][2] <<
"\tAlt: " << sqrt(pow(cb_pos_d[3][0] - cb_pos_d[0][0],2) + pow(cb_pos_d[3][1] - cb_pos_d[0][1],2) + pow(cb_pos_d[3][2] - cb_pos_d[0][2],2)) << std::endl;
std::cout << "Time: " << time << "\tcb_o_h[3]: " << cb_o_h[3] << std::endl;
cb_orbit_update_counter++;
}
I remove __declspec(noinline) from the function F_Get_Body_Name alone, the code gets slower. Similarly, if i remove the execution of this function or add __declspec(noinline) again, the code runs faster. All other functions still have __declspec(noinline).
EDIT 7:
So i changed the switch function to
const std::string cb_names[] = {"the Sun","Mercury","Venus","Earth","Mars","Jupiter","Saturn","Uranus","Neptune","Pluto","Ceres","the Moon","unnamed body"}; // global definition
const int cb_number = 12; // global definition
std::string F_Get_Body_Name(int r_body)
{
if (r_body >= 0 && r_body < cb_number)
{
return (cb_names[r_body]);
}
else
{
return (cb_names[cb_number]);
}
}
and also made another part of the code slimmer. The program now runs fast without any __declspec(noinline). As ElderBug suggested, an issue with the CPU instruction cache then / the code getting too big?
I'd put my money on Intel's branch predictor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_predictor
The processor assumes (time - cb_last_orbital_update > 5000000) to be false most of the time and loads up the execution pipeline accordingly.
Once the condition (time - cb_last_orbital_update > 5000000) comes true. The misprediction delay is hitting you. You may loose 10 to 20 cycles.
if (time - cb_last_orbital_update > 5000000)
{
cb_last_orbital_update = time;
}
Something is happening that you don't expect.
One candidate is some uninitialised variables hanging around somewhere, which have different values depending on the exact code that you are running. For example, you might have uninitialised memory that is sometime a denormalised floating point number, and sometime it's not.
I think it should be clear that your code doesn't do what you expect it to do. So try debugging your code, compile with all warnings enabled, make sure you use the same compiler options (optimised vs. non-optimised can easily be a factor 10). Check that you get the same results.
Especially when you say "it runs faster again (this doesn't always work though, but i can't see a pattern). Also worked with changing 5000000 to 5E6 once. It only runs fast once though, recompiling causes the performance to drop again without changing anything. One time it ran slower only after recompiling twice." it looks quite likely that you are using different compiler options.
I will try another guess. This is hypothetical, and would be mostly due to the compiler.
My guess is that you use a lot of floating point calculations, and the introduction and use of double values in your main makes the compiler run out of XMM registers (the floating point SSE registers). This force the compiler to use memory instead of registers, and induce a lot of swapping between memory and registers, thus greatly reducing the performance. This would be happening mainly because of the computations functions inlining, because function calls are preserving registers.
The solution would be to add __declspec(noinline) to ALL your computation functions declarations.
I suggest using the Microsoft Profile Guided Optimizer -- if the compiler is making the wrong assumption for this particular branch it will help, and it will in all likelihood improve speed for the rest of the code as well.
Workaround, try 2:
The code is now looking like this:
int cb_orbit_update_counter = 1; // before while loop
if(time - cb_orbit_update_counter * 5E6 > 0)
{
cb_orbit_update_counter++;
}
So far it runs fast, plus the code is being executed when it should as far as i can tell. Again only a workaround, but if this proves to work all around then i'm satisfied.
After some more testing, seems good.
My guess is that this is because the variable cb_last_orbital_update is otherwise read-only, so when you assign to it inside the if, it destroys some optimizations that the compiler has for read-only variables (e.g. perhaps it's now stored in memory instead of a register).
Something to try (although this might still not work) is to make a third variable that is initialized via cb_last_orbital_update and time depending on whether the condition is true, and using that one instead. Presumably, the compiler would now treat that variable as a constant, but I'm not sure.
I am writing a simple program (my 1st program) to display the laptop battery, however, I would like to keep it active to monitor the battery %.:
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
id:
SYSTEM_POWER_STATUS spsPwr;
if (GetSystemPowerStatus(&spsPwr)) {
cout << "\nAC Status : " << static_cast<double>(spsPwr.ACLineStatus)
<< "\nBattery Status : " << static_cast<double>(spsPwr.BatteryFlag)
<< "\nBattery Life % : " << static_cast<double>(spsPwr.BatteryLifePercent)
<< endl;
system("CLS");
goto id;
return 0;
}
else return 1;
}
using goto seems to be a bad idea as the CPU utilization jump to 99% ! :(, I am sure this is not the right way to do it.
Any suggestion?
Thanks
while (true) {
// do the stuff
::Sleep(2000); // suspend thread to 2 sec
}
(you are on Windows according to the API function)
see: Sleep
First of all, the issue you are asking about: of course you get 100% CPU usage, since you're asking the computer to try and get and print the power status of the computer as fast it possibly can. And since computers will happily do what you tell them to, well... you know what happens next.
As others have said, the solution is to use an API that will instruct your application to go to sleep. In Windows, which appears to be your platform of choice, that API is Sleep:
// Sleep for around 1000 milliseconds - it may be slightly more since Windows
// is not a hard real-time operating system.
Sleep(1000);
Second, please do not use goto. There are looping constructs in C and you should use them. I'm not fundamentally opposed to goto (in fact, in my kernel-driver programming days I used it quite frequently) but I am opposed to seeing it used when better alternatives are available. In this case the better alternative is a while loop.
Before I show you that let me point out another issue: DO NOT USE THE system function.
Why? The system function executes the command passed to it; on Windows it happens to execute inside the context of the command interpreter (cmd.exe) which supports and internal command called cls which happens to clear the screen. At least on your system. But yours isn't the only system in the world. On some other system, there might be a program called cls.exe which would get executed instead, and who knows what that would do? It could clear the screen, or it could format the hard drive. So please, don't use the system function. It's almost always the wrong thing to do. If you find yourself looking for that command stop and think about what you're doing and whether you need to do it.
So, you may ask, how do I clear the screen if I can't use system("cls")? There's a way to do it which should be portable across various operating systems:
int main(int, char **)
{
SYSTEM_POWER_STATUS spsPwr;
while (GetSystemPowerStatus(&spsPwr))
{
std::string status = "unknown";
if (spsPwr.ACLineStatus == 0)
status = "offline";
else if (spsPwr.ACLineStatus == 1)
status = "online";
// The percent of battery life left is returned as a value
// between 0 and 255 so we normalize it by multiplying it
// by 100.0 and dividing by 255.0 which is ~0.39.
std::cout << "Current Status: " << status << " ("
<< static_cast<int>(spsPwr.BatteryFlag) << "): "
<< 0.39 * static_cast<int>(spsPwr.BatteryLifePercent)
<< "% of battery remaining.\r" << std::flush;
// Sleep for around 1000 milliseconds - it may be slightly more
// since Windows is not a hard real-time operating system.
Sleep(1000);
}
// Print a new line before exiting.
std::cout << std::endl;
return 0;
}
What this does is print the information in a single line, then move back to the beginning of that line, sleep for around one second and then write the next line, overwriting what was previously there.
If the new line you write is shorter than the previous line, you may see some visual artifacts. Removing them should not be difficult but I'll leave it for you as an exercise. Here's a hint: what happens if you output a space where a letter used to be?
In order to do this across lines, you will need to use more advanced techniques to manipulate the console, and this exercise becomes a lot trickier.
You are having 100% CPU usage because your program is always running.
I don't want to get into details, and given that this is your first program, I'll recommend to put a call to usleep before the goto.
And, of course, avoid goto, use a proper loop instead.
int milliseconds2wait = 3000;
while (!flag_exit) {
// code
usleep( 1000 * milliseconds2wait )
}
Update: This is windows, use Sleep instead of usleep:
Sleep( milliseconds2wait );