A colleague of mine is getting a quote from a software developer that involves serial communication, and in their quote, the developer makes the the following statement:
...Windows 7 operating system, which uses a non-real-time serial communication setup.
Is it true that Windows 7 does not support real-time serial communication? To clarify on what it is meant by "real-time," the project deals with robot automation and any delays in communication (such as from buffering) could cause damage to the product, or stop the production line. I can not find any evidence to either support or deny this claim. I don't believe it to be true though, and I think it probably has more to do with them using VB.Net for development.
The 'real-time' term used here does not actually refer to anything in the serial communications bus.
However, it does have to do with the fact that the windows multitasking scheduler is not designed to allow for realtime tasks which have hard deadlines.
See this question for some info Why is Windows not considered suitable for real time systems/high performance servers?
Lets pretend you have a particle accelerator hooked up to your computer and you have to ensure that every 10 microseconds the magnet train switches to power the next set of cells but windows decides that it's time to apply some Windows Update patches. Your photon stream wouldn't get redirected properly and could cause damage to the system.
It is a fairly nonsensical statement, Windows itself is not a real-time operating system. It cannot provide hard guarantees that user mode code is going to respond quick enough. Other than thread scheduling delays, a simple mishap like getting the pages of the process swapped to the paging file is enough to cause arbitrary delays in getting it running again. An attribute of any demand-paged virtual memory operating system. So of course a "serial communications setup" cannot be either, assuming you are not contemplating writing ring 0 kernel code. Nobody does.
It is not a practical problem, the only point of using a serial port is to talk to the controller for the robot. Which provides the real-time guarantee.
You could only get in trouble when you command the robot to make an unrestricted move and use an external sensor to get it to stop. Not uncommon when you need to find an object whose location you don't know. A decent controller knows how to do that, avoid implementing it in your Windows code. Solid overtravel protection built into the robot itself that triggers an e-stop is necessary anyway, you can't trust that sensor either.
No, Windows 7 (and in fact all of the mainstream Windows releases) are not Real-time operating systems. To clarify what is meant by a real-time operating system:
A real-time operating system (RTOS) is an operating system (OS)
intended to serve real-time application requests. It must be able to
process data as it comes in, typically without buffering delays.
Processing time requirements (including any OS delay) are measured in
tenths of seconds or shorter.
A key characteristic of an RTOS is the level of its consistency
concerning the amount of time it takes to accept and complete an
application's task; the variability is jitter.[1] A hard real-time
operating system has less jitter than a soft real-time operating
system. The chief design goal is not high throughput, but rather a
guarantee of a soft or hard performance category. An RTOS that can
usually or generally meet a deadline is a soft real-time OS, but if it
can meet a deadline deterministically it is a hard real-time OS. [2]
An RTOS has an advanced algorithm for scheduling. Scheduler
flexibility enables a wider, computer-system orchestration of process
priorities, but a real-time OS is more frequently dedicated to a
narrow set of applications. Key factors in a real-time OS are minimal
interrupt latency and minimal thread switching latency; a real-time OS
is valued more for how quickly or how predictably it can respond than
for the amount of work it can perform in a given period of time.[3]
Note that most of the time real-time operating systems are less efficient (i.e. have lower throughput), which is why none of the mainstream operating systems are real-time (e.g. real-time editions of Linux use completely different kernels) - its only worth it in cases where timing at a very precise level is absolutely critical.
Windows CE is a real-time operating system Real-Time Systems with Microsoft Windows CE 2.1
Related
How does the operating system manage the program permissions? If you are writing a low-level program without using any system calls, directly controlling the processor, then how does an operating system put stakes if the program directly controls the processor?
Edit
It seems that my question is not very clear, I apologize, I can not speak English well and I use the translator. Anyway, what I wonder is how an operating system manages the permissions of the programs (for example the root user etc ...). If a program is written to really low-level without making system calls, then can it have full access to the processor? If you want to say that it can do everything you want and as a result the various users / permissions that the operating system does not have much importance. However, from the first answer I received I read that you can not make useful programs that work without system calls, so a program can not interact directly with a hardware (I mean how the bios interacts with the hardware for example)?
Depends on the OS. Something like MS-DOS that is barely an OS and doesn't stop a program from taking over the whole machine essentially lets programs run with kernel privilege.
An any OS with memory-protection that tries to keep separate processes from stepping on each other, the kernel doesn't allow user-space processes to talk directly to I/O hardware.
A privileged user-space process might be allowed to memory-map video RAM and/or I/O registers of a device into its own address space, and basically act like a device driver. (e.g. an X server under Linux.)
1) It is imposible to have a program that that does not make any system calls.
2) Instructions that control the operation of the processor must be executed in kernel mode.
3) The only way to get into kernel mode is through an exception (including system calls). By controlling how exceptions are handled, the operating system prevents malicious access.
If a program is written to really low-level without making system calls, then can it have full access to the processor?
On a modern system this is impossible. A system call is going to be made in the background whether you like it or not.
The beaglebone Black processor includes two independent Programmable Real Time Units (PRUs). Hobbyists and professionals are excited about possible use of these units for real-time applications, which is understood. However, if you can have a RTOS (whether for the beaglebone or the raspberry pi), why would you need the PRUs?
EDIT-
For information, the BBB has an ARM Cortex A8 running at 1 GHz, with 1.9 DMIPS / MHz. The PRUs are simple RISCs running at 200 MHz.
Linux, even with the real-time scheduler is unsuited to many critical hard real-time tasks with response requirements at the microsecond level, on the other hand it provides or enables a great deal of functionality in terms of UI, connectivity and filesystem support. These things are either not available in an RTOS or are provided at significant cost in high end RTOS, and with much more limited hardware support.
So if you have a system that has hard-real time constraints, but needs more general purpose computing features such a networking, filesystem connection to commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) peripherals etc., then the PRU provides a solution to that.
On the other hand I can't help but think that this is a marketing exercise on the part of TI to sell more chips. A similar solution has always been possible (and indeed common) using one or more processors to perform time critical tasks, possibly running an RTOS, while UI and connectivity are handled by a single processor with the necessary hardware and memory resources but without the real-time constraints. The PRU device does have two 32 bit cores, but XMOS xCORE devices have as many as 16 cores - with 16 communicating cores, you may not even need an RTOS.
To answer the question...
[...] if you can have a RTOS [...], why would you need the PRUs?
... directly; you probably wouldn't need them in that case, but you would loose Linux - and your application may need that. It is just one of many solutions to real-time applications using Linux. You pays your money, and takes your choice.
Most likely the processor in BeagleBone or RaspberryPI is too "heavy" for real time - after all, you could run RTOS on your PC, but it will not be very responsive entirely deterministic, even when it's faster than your typical microcontroller (I guess that these PRUs are some sort of microcontrollers with a new fancy name). In such high-level application processor as found on these boards you rarely have direct access to hardware or interrupts, which are essential for real time applications that actually do something time-critical.
I basically wanted to know what exactly a virtual processor is. At IBM's site they define it as:
"A virtual processor is a representation of a physical processor core to the operating system of a logical partition that uses shared processors. "
I understand that if there are x processors, each of which can simultaneously perform two operations, then the system can perform 2x operations simultaneously. But where does virtual processor fit into this. And i tried looking up the difference between a logical partition and other partitions such as primary but wasn't really sure.
I'd like to draw an analogy between virtual memory and virtual processors.
Start with expectations:
A user program is written against a set of expectation about what the memory looks like (an a nice flat, large, continuous memory model is the best...)
An OS system is written against a set of expectation of how the hardware performs (what CPU protection modes operation are available, how interrupts arrive and are blocked and handled, how to talk to IO devices, etc...)
Realize that expectation can be met directly by the hardware, or by an abstraction layer
Virtual memory is a set of (specialized, not found in simple chips) hardware tools and OS services that fake a user program into thinking that it has that nice, flat, large, continuous memory space, even while the OS is busily dividing the real memory into little piece, and storing some of them on disk, bringing other back, and otherwise making a real hash of it. But your code doesn't care. Everything just works.
A virtual processor system is a set of (specialized, not found in consumer CPUs) hardware tools and hypervisor services that allow your OS to believe it has direct access to one or more processors with the expected protection modes, interrupts, etc. even though the hypervisor is busily swapping whole OS contexts onto and off of one or more real processors, starting and stopping access to IO busses, and so on and so forth. But the OS doesn't care. Everything just works.
The hardware support to do this is has only recently started to be available in "desktop" CPUs, but Big Iron has had it for ages. It is useful for a couple of reasons
Protection. In a properly protected OS, it is tough for one processes or user to spy on another. But since they can be resident in the same context, it may still be possible. Virtualizing OSs divides them by another, even thinner channel and makes it that much harder for data to leak, and malicious things to be done.
Robustness. If you can swap OS contexts in and out you migrate them from one machine to anther and checkpoint and restart. Which allows for computers that detect failures on their own processors and recover gracefully.
These are the things (aside from millions of LOC of heavily debugged, mission critical code) that have kept people paying for Big Iron.
First the background, specifics of my question will follow:
At the company that I work at the platform we work on is currently the Microchip PIC32 family using the MPLAB IDE as our development environment. Previously we've also written firmware for the Microchip dsPIC and TI MSP families for this same application.
The firmware is pretty straightforward in that the code is split into three main modules: device control, data sampling, and user communication (usually a user PC). Device control is achieved via some combination of GPIO bus lines and at least one part needing SPI or I2C control. Data sampling is interrupt driven using a Timer module to maintain sample frequency and more SPI/I2C and GPIO bus lines to control the sampling hardware (ie. ADC). User communication is currently implemented via USB using the Microchip App Framework.
So now the question: given what I've described above, at what point would I consider employing an RTOS for my project? Currently I'm thinking of these possible trigger points as reasons to use an RTOS:
Code complexity? The code base architecture/organization is still small enough that I can keep all the details in my head.
Multitasking/Threading? Time-slicing the module execution via interrupts suffices for now for multitasking.
Testing? Currently we don't do much formal testing or verification past the HW smoke test (something I hope to rectify in the near future).
Communication? We currently use a custom packet format and a protocol that pretty much only does START, STOP, SEND DATA commands with data being a binary blob.
Project scope? There is a possibility in the near future that we'll be getting a project to integrate our device into a larger system with the goal of taking that system to mass production. Currently all our projects have been experimental prototypes with quick turn-around of about a month, producing one or two units at a time.
What other points do you think I should consider? In your experience what convinced (or forced) you to consider using an RTOS vs just running your code on the base runtime? Pointers to additional resources about designing/programming for an RTOS is also much appreciated.
There are many many reasons you might want to use an RTOS. They are varied & the degree to which they apply to your situation is hard to say. (Note: I tend to think this way: RTOS implies hard real time which implies preemptive kernel...)
Rate Monotonic Analysis (RMA) - if you want to use Rate Monotonic Analysis to ensure your timing deadlines will be met, you must use a pre-emptive scheduler
Meet real-time deadlines - even without using RMA, with a priority-based pre-emptive RTOS, your scheduler can help ensure deadlines are met. Paradoxically, an RTOS will typically increase interrupt latency due to critical sections in the kernel where interrupts are usually masked
Manage complexity -- definitely, an RTOS (or most OS flavors) can help with this. By allowing the project to be decomposed into independent threads or processes, and using OS services such as message queues, mutexes, semaphores, event flags, etc. to communicate & synchronize, your project (in my experience & opinion) becomes more manageable. I tend to work on larger projects, where most people understand the concept of protecting shared resources, so a lot of the rookie mistakes don't happen. But beware, once you go to a multi-threaded approach, things can become more complex until you wrap your head around the issues.
Use of 3rd-party packages - many RTOSs offer other software components, such as protocol stacks, file systems, device drivers, GUI packages, bootloaders, and other middleware that help you build an application faster by becoming almost more of an "integrator" than a DIY shop.
Testing - yes, definitely, you can think of each thread of control as a testable component with a well-defined interface, especially if a consistent approach is used (such as always blocking in a single place on a message queue). Of course, this is not a substitute for unit, integration, system, etc. testing.
Robustness / fault tolerance - an RTOS may also provide support for the processor's MMU (in your PIC case, I don't think that applies). This allows each thread (or process) to run in its own protected space; threads / processes cannot "dip into" each others' memory and stomp on it. Even device regions (MMIO) might be off limits to some (or all) threads. Strictly speaking, you don't need an RTOS to exploit a processor's MMU (or MPU), but the 2 work very well hand-in-hand.
Generally, when I can develop with an RTOS (or some type of preemptive multi-tasker), the result tends to be cleaner, more modular, more well-behaved and more maintainable. When I have the option, I use one.
Be aware that multi-threaded development has a bit of a learning curve. If you're new to RTOS/multithreaded development, you might be interested in some articles on Choosing an RTOS, The Perils of Preemption and An Introduction to Preemptive Multitasking.
Lastly, even though you didn't ask for recommendations... In addition to the many numerous commercial RTOSs, there are free offerings (FreeRTOS being one of the most popular), and the Quantum Platform is an event-driven framework based on the concept of active objects which includes a preemptive kernel. There are plenty of choices, but I've found that having the source code (even if the RTOS isn't free) is advantageous, esp. when debugging.
RTOS, first and foremost permits you to organize your parallel flows into the set of tasks with well-defined synchronization between them.
IMO, the non-RTOS design is suitable only for the single-flow architecture where all your program is one big endless loop. If you need the multi-flow - a number of tasks, running in parallel - you're better with RTOS. Without RTOS you'll be forced to implement this functionality in-house, re-inventing the wheel.
Code re-use -- if you code drivers/protocol-handlers using an RTOS API they may plug into future projects easier
Debugging -- some IDEs (such as IAR Embedded Workbench) have plugins that show nice live data about your running process such as task CPU utilization and stack utilization
Usually you want to use an RTOS if you have any real-time constraints. If you don’t have real-time constraints, a regular OS might suffice. RTOS’s/OS’s provide a run-time infrastructure like message queues and tasking. If you are just looking for code that can reduce complexity, provide low level support and help with testing, some of the following libraries might do:
The standard C/C++ libraries
Boost libraries
Libraries available through the manufacturer of the chip that can provide hardware specific support
Commercial libraries
Open source libraries
Additional to the points mentioned before, using an RTOS may also be useful if you need support for
standard storage devices (SD, Compact Flash, disk drives ...)
standard communication hardware (Ethernet, USB, Firewire, RS232, I2C, SPI, ...)
standard communication protocols (TCP-IP, ...)
Most RTOSes provide these features or are expandable to support them
When I hear that, I always think about an mobile device. But why is the hardware "embedded" there? Isn't the whole device the hardware? Why is a personal computer no embedded hardware system?
In today's world embedded simply refers to a system with one or more of the following traits:
Single purpose (ie, not a general purpose computer, like your desktop)
Firmware rather than software - still software, but not as easily updated (flash, etc)
Hardware and software are designed together as a unit
Different, perhaps more rigorous testing as software updates are not desired
Real time computing
Memory integrated on the CPU
Microcontroller rather than microprocessor
Expected high reliability (you shouldn't have to reboot your dishwasher or microwave)
If it runs a program, but doesn't look like a computer, it's an embedded system.
That's my standard answer for friends and family. There's too many different types of embedded systems to get more specific.
I worked in the "embedded" area for a while and we considered anything that we had to write custom code for the hardware to be embedded.
If you have to work around the memory structure, write custom device drivers and anything that sits "directly on the metal" is generally "embedded".
If you're debugging it via a serial port - it's embedded.
It is called "embedded" because the computer is embedded as part of a larger device.
There is a very wide range of embedded systems.
At the low end are 8-pin PICs, for example there is a 12F629 in these diode lights. These costs cents and have very little memory.
The NXT by LEGO contains two controllers, a relatively big AT91SAM7S256 with a 32-bit ARM core, 256KB of flash ROM and 64KB of RAM, and a smaller 8-bit ATmega48 with 4KB of flash.
Currently I'm working on embedded systems for trains, these typically have a PowerPC with some hundreds of MHz clock, on the order of a hundred MB of RAM, run VxWorks or Linux and are connected by Ethernet.
I think there are still more powerful embedded systems for telecommunications, but I haven't worked on these.
As per Wikipedia:
An embedded system is a
special-purpose computer system designed to perform one or a few
dedicated functions, often with
real-time computing constraints. It is
usually embedded as part of a complete
device including hardware and
mechanical parts. In contrast, a
general-purpose computer, such as a
personal computer, can do many
different tasks depending on
programming.
Embedded systems are designed to do some specific task, rather than be a
general-purpose computer for multiple
tasks. Some also have real-time
performance constraints that must be
met, for reasons such as safety and
usability; others may have low or no
performance requirements, allowing the
system hardware to be simplified to
reduce costs.
Embedded systems are not always standalone devices. Many embedded
systems consist of small, computerized
parts within a larger device that
serves a more general purpose. For
example, the Gibson Robot Guitar
features an embedded system for tuning
the strings, but the overall purpose
of the Robot Guitar is, of course, to
play music.[2] Similarly, an embedded
system in an automobile provides a
specific function as a subsystem of
the car itself.
The program instructions written for embedded systems are referred to as
firmware, and are stored in read-only
memory or Flash memory chips. They run
with limited computer hardware
resources: little memory, small or
non-existent keyboard and/or screen.
From personal experience, if it's "headless" (i.e. doesn't have an output device like a VDU and relies on something like LED's), if there is a serial port used mainly for debugging and logging and if you often use a logic analyser for debugging, it's embedded.
"Embedded" has become a very diverse term.
I've seen and worked on designs that:
Simply toggled discrete I/O (including LEDs) at fixed intervals
Drivers for hardware solutions (e.g. webcams, wireless com)
Acted as communications translators for board-level I/O (SPI<->I2C<->Rs232<->USB)
[ insert multitude of appliances here ]
Human-controlled electronics (calculator-esque, phone-esque)
System level devices to coordinate actions of other devices.
I also like Dour-High-Arch's comment above:
"Another important difference is that embedded apps may run for years without intervention..."
"Embedded system" is a very broad term and I don't think that it is easy to have a single definition. The word "embedded" actually refers to an industry and not to a "hardware system". The description of embedded systems has changed over the years and it is definitely going to change in the future too.
In early days one would say the embedded systems were only programmed in assembly, but now C is common place and perhaps in the future other languages are used as well. CPUs are getting bigger and bigger, external memories are used all the time and they are many devices considered to be embedded that are not dedicated to a single task, applications can be added to them and the software is easily updated. Watches, gadgets, house appliances, automotive devices, PLCs, motor controllers, weather stations, system monitoring devices are all considered embedded. It is difficult to singe define them all.