I am developing an application, and need to estimate how much resources (RAM and ROM) it will need to run on a device. I have been looking online, but couldn't find any good tip on how to do this.
The system in question is an industrial system. The application itself will need to have a .NET Compact framework, and following components besides Windows CE Core: SYSGEN_HTTPD (Web Server), SYSGEN_ATL (Active Template Libraries), SYSGEN_SOAPTK_SERVER (SOAP Server), SYSGEN_MSXML_HTTP (XML/HTTP), SYSGEN_CPP_EH_AND_RTTI (Exception Handling and Runtime Type Information).
Tx
There really is not way to estimate this, becasue application behavior and code can have wildly different requirements. Something that does image manipulation is going to likely require more RAM than a simple HMI, but even two graphical apps that do the same thing could be vastly different based on how image algorithms and buffer sizes are set up.
The only way to greally get an idea is to actually run the application and see what the footprint looks like. I would guess that you're going to want a BOM that includes at least 64MB or RAM and 32MB of flash at a bare minimum. Depending on the app, I'd probably ask for 128MB of RAM. Flash would greatly depend on what the app needs to do.
Since you are specifying core OS components and since I assume you can estimate your own application's resources, I assume you ask for an estimation of the OS as a whole.
The simplest way to have an approximation is to build an emulator image (CE6 has an arm one) and it should give you a sense. The difference with the final image will be with the size of the drivers for the actual platform you will use.
Related
We used the LPC546xx family microcontroller in our project, currently, at the initial stage, we are finalizing the software and hardware requirements. The basic firmware size (which contains RTOS, 3rd party stack, library, etc...) currently is 480 KB. Now once full application developed than the size will exceed the internal flash size (512KB) and plus we needed storage which can hold firmware update image separately.
So we planned to use SPI flash (S25LP064A-JBLE, http://www.issi.com/WW/pdf/IS25LP032-064-128.pdf, serial flash memory) of 4MB\8MB to boot and run firmware.
is it recommended to run code from SPI flash? how can I map external flash memory directly to CPU memory space? Can anyone give an example that contains this memory mapping(linker script etc..) or demo application in which LPC546xx uses SPI FLASH?
Generally speaking it's not recommended, or differently put: the closer to the CPU the better. Both S25LP064A and LPC546xx however support XIP, so it is viable.
This is not a trivial issue as many aspects are affecting. I.e. issue is best avoided and should really have been ironed out in the planning stage. Embedded Systems are more about compromising than anything and making the right/better choices takes skill end experience.
Same question with replies on the NXP forum: link
512K of NVRAM is huge. There are almost certainly room for optimisations even if 3'rd party libraries are used.
On a related note this discussion concerning XIP should give valuable insight: link.
I would strongly encourage use of file-systems if not done already, for which external storage is much better suited. The further from the computational unit, the more relevant. That's not XIP and the penalty is copy-to-RAM either way you do it. I.e. performance will be slower. But in my experience, the need for speed has often-times not been thoroughly considered and at least partially greatly overestimated.
Regarding your mentioning of RTOS and FW-upgrade:
Unless it's a poor RTOS there's file-system awareness built in. Especially for FW upgrading (Note: you'll need room for 3 images, factory reset included), unless already supported by the SoC-vendor by some other means (OTA), it will make life much easier and less risky. If there's no FS-awareness, it can be added.
FW upgrade requires a lot of extra storage. More if simpler. Simpler is however also safer which especially for FW upgrades matters hugely. In the simplest case (binary flat image), you'll need at least twice the amount of memory you're already consuming.
All-in-all: I think the direction you're going is viable and depending on the actual situation perhaps your only choice.
We're currently creating a device for a customer that will get a block of data (like, say, 5-10KB) from a PC application. This is a bit simplified, so assume that the data must be passed and uncompressed a lot, not just once a year. The communication channel is really, really slow, so we'd like to compress the data beforehand, pass to the device and let it uncompress the data to its internal flash. The device itself, however, runs on a micro controller that is not really fast and does not have a lot of memory. It has enough flash memory to store the result, and can uncompress the data block as it is received, but it may not have enough RAM to store the entire compressed or uncompressed (or even both!) data blocks. And of course, it doesn't have an operating system or other luxury.
This means we need a sufficiently fast uncompression algorithm that does not use a lot of memory. The compression can be slow and ugly, since we're doing it on the PC side. C or .NET code preferred though for compression, to make things easier. The uncompression code should be in C, since it's unlikely that someone has an ASM optimized version for our controller.
We found LZO, which would be almost perfect for us, but it has a so-called "free" license (GPL) by default, which makes it totally unusable for our customer. The author says that commercial licenses are available on request, but unfortunately he's currently unreachable (for non-technical reasons, like the news on his site say).
I found a few other libraries, including the puff.c from zlib, and we're still investigating, but I thought I'd ask for your experience:
Which compression algorithm and/or library do you recommend for embedded purposes, given that the decompression device has really limited resources and source code and a commercial license are required?
You might want to check out one of these which are not GPL and are fairly compact implementations:
fastlz - MIT license, fairly simple code
lzjb - sun CDDL, used in zfs for compression, simple and very short
liblzf - BSD-style license, small, fast
lzfx - BSD-style, based on liblzf, small, fast
Those algorithms are all based on the original algorithm of Lempel–Ziv–Welch (They have all LZ in common)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel–Ziv–Welch
I have used LZSS. I used code from Haruhiko Okumura as base. It uses the last portion of uncompressed data(2K) as dictionary. This code can be modified to not require a temporary ring buffer if you have no memory. The licensing is not clear from his site but some versions was released with a "Use, distribute, and modify this program freely" line included and the code is used by commercial vendors.
Here is an implementation based on the same code that forms part of the Allegro game library. Allegro licensing is giftware or zlib.
Another option could be the lzfx lib that implement LZF. I have not used it yet but it seems nice. Also uses previous results so it has low memory requirements and is released under a BSD Licence.
One alternative could be the LZ77 coder/decoder in the Basic Compression Library.
Since it uses the unpacked data history for its dictionary, it uses no extra RAM except for the compressed and uncompressed data buffers. It should be ideal for your use case (zlib license, portable C). The entire decoder is just 70 lines of code (including comments), and really fast.
EDIT: Yet another alternative is the liblzg library, which is a refined version of the aforementioned LZ77 coder/decoder. It compresses better, is generally faster, and requires no memory for decompression. It is very, very free (zlib license).
I would recommend ZLIB.
From the wiki:
The library provides facilities for control of processor and memory use
There are also facilities for conserving memory. These are probably only useful in restricted memory environments such as some embedded systems.
zlib is also used in many embedded devices because the code is portable, liberally-licensed
and has a relatively small memory footprint.
A lot depends on the nature of the data. If it is simple enough, you may not need anything very fancy. For example if the downloaded data was a simple image (for example something like a line graph), a simple run length encoding could cut the data down by a factor of ten and you would need trivial amounts of code and RAM to decode it.
Of course if the data is more complex, then this won't be of much use. But I'd start by exploring the data being sent and see if there are specific aspects which would allow you to compress it more effectively than using a general purpose algorithm.
You might want to check out Jørgen Ibsen's aPlib - a couple of excerpts from the product page:
The compression ratios achieved by aPLib combined with the speed and tiny footprint of the depackers (as low as 169 bytes!) makes it the ideal choice for many products.
aPLib is free to use even for commercial use, please check the included license for details.
The compression library is closed-source (yes, I know this could be a problem), but has precompiled libraries for a variety of compilers and operating systems, including both 32- and 64-bit editions. There's C and x86 assembly source code for the decompressor.
EDIT:
Jørgen also has a free (zlib license) BrifLZ library you could check out if not having compressor source is a big problem.
I've seen people use 7zip on an embedded system with memory in the tens of megabytes.
there is a specific custom version of zlib for Micro-controller based on ARM Cortex-M (M0, M0+, M1, M3, M4)
https://github.com/kuym/Zlib-ARM-Cortex-M
I'm curious, why did Sun decide to make the JVM stack-based and Google decide to make the DalvikVM register-based?
I suppose the JVM can't really assume that a certain number of registers are available on the target platform, since it is supposed to be platform independent. Therefor it just postpones the register-allocation etc, to the JIT compiler. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
So the Android guys thought, "hey, that's inefficient, let's go for a register based vm right away..."? But wait, there are multiple different android devices, what number of registers did the Dalvik target? Are the Dalvik opcodes hardcoded for a certain number of registers?
Do all current Android devices on the market have about the same number of registers? Or, is there a register re-allocation performed during dex-loading? How does all this fit together?
There are a few attributes of a stack-based VM that fit in well with Java's design goals:
A stack-based design makes very few
assumptions about the target
hardware (registers, CPU features),
so it's easy to implement a VM on a
wide variety of hardware.
Since the operands for instructions
are largely implicit, the object
code will tend to be smaller. This
is important if you're going to be
downloading the code over a slow
network link.
Going with a register-based scheme probably means that Dalvik's code generator doesn't have to work as hard to produce performant code. Running on an extremely register-rich or register-poor architecture would probably handicap Dalvik, but that's not the usual target - ARM is a very middle-of-the-road architecture.
I had also forgotten that the initial version of Dalvik didn't include a JIT at all. If you're going to interpret the instructions directly, then a register-based scheme is probably a winner for interpretation performance.
I can't find a reference, but I think Sun decided for the stack-based bytecode approach because it makes it easy to run the JVM on an architecture with few registers (e.g. IA32).
In Dalvik VM Internals from Google I/O 2008, the Dalvik creator Dan Bornstein gives the following arguments for choosing a register-based VM on slide 35 of the presentation slides:
Register Machine
Why?
avoid instruction dispatch
avoid unnecessary memory access
consume instruction stream efficiently (higher semantic density per instruction)
and on slide 36:
Register Machine
The stats
30% fewer instructions
35% fewer code units
35% more bytes in the instructions stream
but we get to consume two at a time
According to Bornstein this is "a general expectation what you could find when you convert a set of class files to dex files".
The relevant part of the presentation video starts at 25:00.
There is also an insightful paper titled "Virtual Machine Showdown: Stack Versus Registers" by Shi et al. (2005), which explores the differences between stack- and register-based virtual machines.
I don't know why Sun decided to make JVM stack based. Erlangs virtual machine, BEAM is register based for performance reasons. And Dalvik also seem to be register based because of performance reasons.
From Pro Android 2:
Dalvik uses registers as primarily units of data storage instead of the stack. Google is hoping to accomplish 30 percent fewer instructions as a result.
And regarding the code size:
The Dalvik VM takes the generated Java class files and combines them into one or more Dalvik Executables (.dex) files. It reuses duplicate information from multiple class files, effectively reducing the space requirement (uncompressed) by half from traditional .jar file. For example, the .dex file of the web browser app in Android is about 200k, whereas the equivalent uncompressed .jar version is about 500k. The .dex file of the alarm clock is about 50k, and roughly twice that size in its .jar version.
And as I remember Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach also conclude that a register machine perform better than a stack based machine.
We have some users which are using lower-CPU powered machines and they're encountering slow response times using our web application. Is there any way for me to do testing so that I can simulate lower CPU rates?
For example, I have 2.3 Ghz computing power, can I lower it to 1.6 Ghz or lower so that I may be able to test it?
BTW, our customers are using Windows. I have to simulate low computing power on Internet Explorer as browser.
Most new CPUs multiplier can easily be lowered (Intel: Speedstep, AMD: PowerNow!). This is used to save power. With RMclock you can manually adjust your multiplier and thus lower your frequency and make your pc slower. I use this tool myself so I can tell you that it works.
http://cpu.rightmark.org/products/rmclock.shtml
The virtual machine Bochs(pronounced boxes) allows you to set a instructions per second directive. It's probably the slowest emulator out there as it is though...
Create some virtual machines.
You can use VirtualPC or VirtualBox both are free.
I would recommend to start something on the background which eats up all your processor cycles.
A program which finds primenumbers or something similar.
Another slight option in addition to those above is to boot windows in a lower resource config. Go to the start menu,, select run and type MSCONFIG. You can go to the boot tab, click on advanced options and limit the memory and number of of processsors. It's not as robust as the above, but it does give you another option.
Lowering the CPU clock doesn't always give expected results.
Newer CPUs feature architecture improvements which make them more efficient on an equvialent clock basis than older chips. Incidentally, because of this virtual machines are a bad way of testing performance for "older" tech as well.
Your best bet is to simply buy a couple of older machines. Using similar RAM (types and amounts), processor, motherboard chipsets, hard drives, and video cards. All of which feed into the total performance of the machine itself.
I bring the other components up because changing just one of them can have an impact on even browser performance. A prime example is memory. If your clients are constrained to something like 512MB of RAM, the machines could be performing a lot of hard drive access for VM swaps, even for just running the browser. In this situation downgrading the clock speed on your processor while still retaining your 2GB (assuming) of RAM would still not perform anywhere near the same even if everything else was equal.
Isak Savo'sanswer works, but can be a bit finicky, as the modern tpl is going to try and limit cpu load as much as possible. When I tested it out, It was hard (though possible with some testing) to consistently get the types of cpu usages I wanted.
Then I remembered, http://www.cpukiller.com/, which does this already. Highly recommended. As an aside, I found this util from playing old 90s games on modern machines, back when frame rate was pegged to cpu clock time, making playing them on modern computers way too fast. Great utility.
Another big difference between high-performance and low-performance CPUs is the number of cores available. This can realistically differ by a factor of 4, way more than the difference in clock frequency you're likely to encounter.
You can solve this by setting the thread affinity. Even IE6 will use 13 threads just to show google.com. That means it will benefit from a multi-core CPU. But if you set the thread affinity to one core only, all 13 IE threads will have to share that one core.
I understand that this question is pretty old, but here are some receipts I personally use (not only for Web development):
BES. I'm getting some weird results while using it.
Go to Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Power Options\Edit Plan Settings\Change Advanced Power Settings, then go to the "Processor" section and set it's maximum state to 5% (or something else). It works only if your processor supports dynamic multiplier change and ACPI driver is installed correctly.
Run Task Manager and set processor affinity to a single core (or whatever number of cores you want) for your browser's (or any other's) process. Not a best practice for browsers, because JavaScript implementations are usually single-threaded, but, as far as I see, modern browsers actually DO use multiple cores.
There are a few different methods to accomplish this.
If you're using VirtualBox, go into the Settings for the VM you want to slow the CPU speed for. Go to System > Processor, then set the Execution Cap. The percentage controls how slow it will go: lower values are slower relative to the regular speed. In practice, I've noticed the results to be choppy, although it does technically work.
It is also possible to set the CPU speed for the whole system. In the Windows 10 Settings app, go to System > Power & Sleep. Then click Additional Power Settings on the right hand side. Go to Change Plan Settings for the currently selected plan, then click Change Advanced Power Plan Settings. Scroll down to Processor Power Management and set the Maximum Processor State. Again, this is a percentage. Although this does work, I find that in practice, it doesn't have a big impact even when the percentage is set very low.
If you're dealing with a videogame that uses DirectX or OpenGL and doesn't have a framerate cap, another common method is to force Vsync on in your graphics driver settings. This will usually slow the rendering to about 60 FPS which may be enough to play at a reasonable rate. However, it will only work for applications using 3D hardware rendering specifically.
Finally: if you'd rather not use a VM, and don't want to change a system global setting, but would rather simulate an old CPU for one specific process only, then I have my own program to do that called Old CPU Simulator.
The main brain of the operation is a command line tool written in C++, but there is also a GUI wrapper written in C#. The GUI requires .NET Framework 4.0. The default settings should be fine in most cases - just select the CPU you'd like to simulate under Target Rate, then hit New and browse for the program you'd like to run.
https://github.com/tomysshadow/OldCPUSimulator (click the Releases tab on the right for binaries.)
The concept is to suspend and resume the process at a precise rate, and because it happens so quickly the process will appear to just be running slowly. For example, by suspending a process for 3 milliseconds, then resuming it for 1 millisecond, it will appear to be running at 25% speed. By controlling the ratio of time suspended vs. time resumed, it is possible to simulate different speeds. This is completely API agnostic (it doesn't hook DirectX, OpenGL, etc. it'll work with a command line program if you want.)
Old CPU Simulator does not ask for a percentage, but rather, the clock speed to simulate (which it calls the Target Rate.) It then automatically determines, based on your CPU's real clock speed, the percentage to use. Although clock speed is not the only factor that has improved computer performance over time (there are also SSDs, faster GPUs, more RAM, multithreaded performance, etc.) it's a good enough approximation to get fairly consistent results across machines given the same Target Rate. It also supports other options that may help with consistency, such as setting the process affinity to one.
It implements three different methods of suspending and resuming a process and will use the best available: NtSuspendProcess, NtQuerySystemInformation, or Toolhelp Snapshots. It also uses timeBeginPeriod and timeEndPeriod to achieve high precision timing without busy looping. Note that this is not an emulator; the binary still runs natively. If you like, you can view the source to see how it's implemented - it's not a large project. On my machine, Old CPU Simulator uses less than 1% CPU and less than 1 MB of memory, so the program itself is quite efficient (unlike running intensive programs to intentionally slow the CPU.)
In the last two months I've worked as a simple application using a computer vision library(OpenCV).
I wish to run that application directly from the webcam without the need of an OS. I'm curious to know if that my application can be burned into a chip in order to not have the OS to run it.
Ofcorse the process can be expensive, but I'm just curious. Do you have any links about that?
ps: the application is written in C.
I'd use something bigger than a PIC, for example a small 32 bit ARM processor.
Yes. It is theoretically possible to port your app to PIC chips.
But...
There are C compilers for the PIC chip, however, due to the limitations of a microcontroller, you might find that the compiler, and the microcontroller itself is far too limited for computer vision work, especially if your initial implementation of the app was done on a full-blown PC:
You'll only have integer math available to you, in most cases, if not all (can't quote me on that, but our devs at work don't have floating point math for their PIC apps and it causes many foul words to emanate from their cubes). Either that, or you'll need to hook to an external math coprocessor.
You'll have to figure out how to get the PIC chip to talk USB to the camera. I know this is possible, but it will require additional hardware, and R&D time.
If you need strict timing control,
you might even have to program the
app in assembler.
You'd have to port portions of OpenCV to the PIC chip, if it hasn't been already. My guess is not.
If your'e not already familiar with microcontroller programming, you'll need some time to get up to speed on the differences between desktop PC programming and microcontroller programming, and you'll have to gain some experience in that. This may not be an issue for you.
Basically, it would probably be best to re-write the whole program from scratch given a PIC chip constraint. Good thing is though, you've done a lot of design work already. It would mainly be hardware/porting work.
OR...
You could try using a small embedded x86 single-board PC, perhaps in the PC/104 form factor, with your OS/app on a CF card. It's a real bone fide PC, you just add your software. Good thing is, you probably wouldn't have to re-write your app, unless it had ridiculous memory footprint. Embedded PC vendors are starting to ship boards based on 1 GHz Intel Atoms, and if you needed more help you could perhaps hook a daughterboard onto the PC-104 bus. You'll work around all of the limitations listed above, as your using an equivalent platform to the PC you developed your app on. And it has USB ports! If you do a thorough cost analysis and if your'e cool with a larger form factor, you might find it to be cheaper/quicker to use a system based on a SBC than rolling a solution using PIC chips/microcontrollers.
A quick search of PC-104 on Google would reveal many vendors of SBCs.
OR...
And this would be really cheap - just get a off-the-shelf cheap Netbook, overwrite the OEM OS, and run the code on there. Hackish, but cheap, and really easy - your hardware issues would be resolved within a week.
Just some ideas.
I think you'll find this might grow into pretty large project.
It's obviously possible to implement a stand-alone hardware solution to do something like this. Off the top of my head, Rabbit's solutions might get you to the finish-line faster. But you might be able to find some home-grown Beagle Board or Gumstix projects as well.
Two Google links I wanted to emphasize:
Rabbit: "Camera Interface Application Kit"
Gumstix: "Connecting a CMOS camera to a Gumstix Connex motherboard"
I would second Nate's recommendation to take a look at Rabbit's core modules.
Also, GHIElectronics has a product called the Embedded Master that runs .Net MicroFramework and has USB host/device capabilities built-in as well as a rich library that is a subset of the .Net framework. It runs on an Arm processor and is fairly inexpensive (> $85). Though not nearly as cheap as a single PIC chip it does come with a lot of glue logic pre-built onto the module.
CMUCam
I think you should have a look at the CMUcam project, which offers affordable hardware and an image processing library which runs on their hardware.