What object/method would I call to get current time in milliseconds (or great precision) to help measure how long a method took to execute?
NSDate's timeIntervalSinceDate will return NSInterval which is measured in seconds. I am looking for something finer grained, something similar to Java's System.currentTimeMillis.
Is there an equivalent version in objective-c/CocoaTouch?
For very fine-grained timings on OS X, I use mach_absolute_time( ), which is defined in <mach/mach_time.h>. You can use it as follows:
#include <mach/mach_time.h>
#include <stdint.h>
static double ticksToNanoseconds = 0.0;
uint64_t startTime = mach_absolute_time( );
// Do some stuff you want to time here
uint64_t endTime = mach_absolute_time( );
// Elapsed time in mach time units
uint64_t elapsedTime = endTime - startTime;
// The first time we get here, ask the system
// how to convert mach time units to nanoseconds
if (0.0 == ticksToNanoseconds) {
mach_timebase_info_data_t timebase;
// to be completely pedantic, check the return code of this next call.
mach_timebase_info(&timebase);
ticksToNanoseconds = (double)timebase.numer / timebase.denom;
}
double elapsedTimeInNanoseconds = elapsedTime * ticksToNanoseconds;
Actually, +[NSDate timeIntervalSinceReferenceDate] returns an NSTimeInterval, which is a typedef for a double. The docs say
NSTimeInterval is always specified in seconds; it yields sub-millisecond precision over a range of 10,000 years.
So it's safe to use for millisecond-precision timing. I do so all the time.
Do not use NSDate for this. You're loosing a lot of precision to call methods and instantiate objects, maybe even releasing something internal. You just don't have enough control.
Use either time.h or as Stephen Canon suggested mach/mach_time.h. They are both much more accurate.
The best way to do this is to fire up Instruments or Shark, attach them to your process (works even if it's already running) and let them measure the time a method takes.
After you're familiar with it this takes even less time than any put-in-mach-time-functions-and-recompile-the-whole-application solution. You even get a lot of information extra. I wouldn't settle for anything less.
timeIntervalSinceReferenceDate is perfectly fine.
However, unless it's a long-running method, this won't bear much fruit. Execution times can vary wildly when you're talking about a few millisecond executions. If your thread/process gets preempted mid-way through, you'll have non-deterministic spikes. Essentially, your sample size is too small. Either use a profiler or run 100,000 iterations to get total time and divide by 100,000 to get average run-time.
If you're trying to tune your code's performance, you would do better to use Instruments or Shark to get an overall picture of where your app is spending its time.
I will repost my answer from another post here. Note that my admittedly simple solution to this complex problem uses NSDate and NSTimeInterval as its foundation:
I know this is an old one but even I found myself wandering past it again, so I thought I'd submit my own option here.
Best bet is to check out my blog post on this:
Timing things in Objective-C: A stopwatch
Basically, I wrote a class that does stop watching in a very basic way but is encapsulated so that you only need to do the following:
[MMStopwatchARC start:#"My Timer"];
// your work here ...
[MMStopwatchARC stop:#"My Timer"];
And you end up with:
MyApp[4090:15203] -> Stopwatch: [My Timer] runtime: [0.029]
in the log...
Again, check out my post for a little more or download it here:
MMStopwatch.zip
#bladnman I love your stopwatch thing.. I use it all the time.. Here's a little block I wrote that eliminates the need for the closing call, and makes it even EASIER (if that even seemed possible) to use, lol.
+(void)stopwatch:(NSString*)name timing:(void(^)())block {
[MMStopwatch start:name];
block();
[MMStopwatch stop: name];
}
then you can just call it wherever..
[MMStopwatch stopwatch:#"slowAssFunction" timing:^{
NSLog(#"%#",#"someLongAssFunction");
}];
↪someLongAssFunction
-> Stopwatch: [slowAssFunction] runtime:[0.054435]
You should post that sucker to github - so people can find it easily / contribute, etc. it's great. thanks.
Related
My model is gradually slower down to an unacceptable speed(i.e. from 200 ticks per second to several seconds for one tick). I'd like to understand what the causes to this problem. What is a simplest way to check which part of the model is increasingly consuming the time? I tried used some other java profiler before but it's not good and difficault to understand.
A Java profiler like YourKit is the best way approach since it will provide the code "hots pots" in terms of the execution times for each class method. Alternatively, you can insert a few timing functions in parts of your model that you suspect contribute to most of the execution time, for example:
long start = System.nanoTime();
// some model code here
long end= System.nanoTime();
System.println("Step A time in seconds: " + (end - start)/1E9);
I am using when command in tcl file, and after the condition is met I want to wait for some microseconds. I have found after, but the delay we specify for after is in milliseconds; it is not taking decimal values.
So is there any other way to add short delay in tcl file?
There's no native operation for that. If it is critical, you could busy-loop looking at clock microseconds…
proc microsleep {micros} {
set expiry [expr {$micros + [clock microseconds]}]
while {[clock microseconds] < $expiry} {}
}
I don't really recommend doing this as it is not energy efficient; such high precision waiting is rarely required in my experience (unless you're working on an embedded system with realtime requirements, an area where Tcl isn't a perfect fit).
Of course, you can also make a C wrapper round a system call like nanosleep(), and that might or might not be a better choice (and might or might not be more efficient)…
I have a machine which uses an NTP client to sync up to internet time so it's system clock should be fairly accurate.
I've got an application which I'm developing which logs data in real time, processes it and then passes it on. What I'd like to do now is output that data every N milliseconds aligned with the system clock. So for example if I wanted to do 20ms intervals, my oututs ought to be something like this:
13:15:05:000
13:15:05:020
13:15:05:040
13:15:05:060
I've seen suggestions for using the stopwatch class, but that only measures time spans as opposed to looking for specific time stamps. The code to do this is running in it's own thread, so should be a problem if I need to do some relatively blocking calls.
Any suggestions on how to achieve this to a reasonable (close to or better than 1ms precision would be nice) would be very gratefully received.
Don't know how well it plays with C++/CLR but you probably want to look at multimedia timers,
Windows isn't really real-time but this is as close as it gets
You can get a pretty accurate time stamp out of timeGetTime() when you reduce the time period. You'll just need some work to get its return value converted to a clock time. This sample C# code shows the approach:
using System;
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
timeBeginPeriod(1);
uint tick0 = timeGetTime();
var startDate = DateTime.Now;
uint tick1 = tick0;
for (int ix = 0; ix < 20; ++ix) {
uint tick2 = 0;
do { // Burn 20 msec
tick2 = timeGetTime();
} while (tick2 - tick1 < 20);
var currDate = startDate.Add(new TimeSpan((tick2 - tick0) * 10000));
Console.WriteLine(currDate.ToString("HH:mm:ss:ffff"));
tick1 = tick2;
}
timeEndPeriod(1);
Console.ReadLine();
}
[DllImport("winmm.dll")]
private static extern int timeBeginPeriod(int period);
[DllImport("winmm.dll")]
private static extern int timeEndPeriod(int period);
[DllImport("winmm.dll")]
private static extern uint timeGetTime();
}
On second thought, this is just measurement. To get an action performed periodically, you'll have to use timeSetEvent(). As long as you use timeBeginPeriod(), you can get the callback period pretty close to 1 msec. One nicety is that it will automatically compensate when the previous callback was late for any reason.
Your best bet is using inline assembly and writing this chunk of code as a device driver.
That way:
You have control over instruction count
Your application will have execution priority
Ultimately you can't guarantee what you want because the operating system has to honour requests from other processes to run, meaning that something else can always be busy at exactly the moment that you want your process to be running. But you can improve matters using timeBeginPeriod to make it more likely that your process can be switched to in a timely manner, and perhaps being cunning with how you wait between iterations - eg. sleeping for most but not all of the time and then using a busy-loop for the remainder.
Try doing this in two threads. In one thread, use something like this to query a high-precision timer in a loop. When you detect a timestamp that aligns to (or is reasonably close to) a 20ms boundary, send a signal to your log output thread along with the timestamp to use. Your log output thread would simply wait for a signal, then grab the passed-in timestamp and output whatever is needed. Keeping the two in separate threads will make sure that your log output thread doesn't interfere with the timer (this is essentially emulating a hardware timer interrupt, which would be the way I would do it on an embedded platform).
CreateWaitableTimer/SetWaitableTimer and a high-priority thread should be accurate to about 1ms. I don't know why the millisecond field in your example output has four digits, the max value is 999 (since 1000 ms = 1 second).
Since as you said, this doesn't have to be perfect, there are some thing that can be done.
As far as I know, there doesn't exist a timer that syncs with a specific time. So you will have to compute your next time and schedule the timer for that specific time. If your timer only has delta support, then that is easily computed but adds more error since the you could easily be kicked off the CPU between the time you compute your delta and the time the timer is entered into the kernel.
As already pointed out, Windows is not a real time OS. So you must assume that even if you schedule a timer to got off at ":0010", your code might not even execute until well after that time (for example, ":0540"). As long as you properly handle those issues, things will be "ok".
20ms is approximately the length of a time slice on Windows. There is no way to hit 1ms kind of timings in windows reliably without some sort of RT add on like Intime. In windows proper I think your options are WaitForSingleObject, SleepEx, and a busy loop.
Noted that the parameter of taskDelay is of type int, which means the number could be negative. Just wondering how the function is going to react when passing a negative number.
Most functions would validate the input, and just return early/return 0/set the parameter in question to a default value.
I presume there's no critical need to do this in production, and you probably have some code lying around that you could test with.... why not give it a go?
The documentation doesn't address it, and the only error codes they do define doesn't cover this case. The most correct answer therefore is that the results are undefined.
See the VxWorks / Tornado II FAQ for this gem, however:
taskDelay(-1) shows another bug in
the vxWorks timer/tick code. It has
the (side) effect of setting vxTicks
to zero. This corrupts the localtime
(and probably other things). In fact
taskDelay(x) will have the same effect
if vxTicks + x >= 0x100000000. If the
system clock rate is 100Hz this
happens after about 500 days (because
vxTicks wraps). At faster clock rates
it will happen sooner. Anyone trying
for several years uptime?
Oh there is an undocumented upper
limit on the clock rate. At rates
above 4294 select() will fail to
convert its 'usec' time into the
correct number of ticks. (From: David
Laight, dsl#tadpole.co.uk)
Assuming this bug is old, I would hope that it would either return an error or do the same thing as taskDelay(0), which puts your task at the end of the ready queue.
The task delay tick will be VIRTUALLY 10,9,..,1,0 for taskDelay(10).
The task delay tick will be VIRTUALLY -10,-11,...,-2147483648,2147483647,...,1,0 for taskDelay(-10).
This question is about programming small microcontrollers without an OS. In particular, I'm interested in PICs at the moment, but the question is general.
I've seen several times the following pattern for keeping time:
Timer interrupt code (say the timer fires every second):
...
if (sec_counter > 0)
sec_counter--;
...
Mainline code (non-interrupt):
sec_counter = 500; // 500 seconds
while (sec_counter)
{
// .. do stuff
}
The mainline code may repeat, set the counter to various values (not just seconds) and so on.
It seems to me there's a race condition here when the assignment to sec_counter in the mainline code isn't atomic. For example, in PIC18 the assignment is translated to 4 ASM statements (loading each byte at the time and selecting the right byte from the memory bank before that). If the interrupt code comes in the middle of this, the final value may be corrupted.
Curiously, if the value assigned is less than 256, the assignment is atomic, so there's no problem.
Am I right about this problem?
What patterns do you use to implement such behavior correctly? I see several options:
Disable interrupts before each assignment to sec_counter and enable after - this isn't pretty
Don't use an interrupt, but a separate timer which is started and then polled. This is clean, but uses up a whole timer (in the previous case the 1-sec firing timer can be used for other purposes as well).
Any other ideas?
The PIC architecture is as atomic as it gets. It ensures that all read-modify-write operations to a memory file are 'atomic'. Although it takes 4-clocks to perform the entire read-modify-write, all 4-clocks are consumed in a single instruction and the next instruction uses the next 4-clock cycle. It is the way that the pipeline works. In 8-clocks, two instructions are in the pipeline.
If the value is larger than 8-bit, it becomes an issue as the PIC is an 8-bit machine and larger operands are handled in multiple instructions. That will introduce atomic issues.
You definitely need to disable the interrupt before setting the counter. Ugly as it may be, it is necessary. It is a good practice to ALWAYS disable the interrupt before configuring hardware registers or software variables affecting the ISR method. If you are writing in C, you should consider all operations as non-atomic. If you find that you have to look at the generated assembly too many times, then it may be better to abandon C and program in assembly. In my experience, this is rarely the case.
Regarding the issue discussed, this is what I suggest:
ISR:
if (countDownFlag)
{
sec_counter--;
}
and setting the counter:
// make sure the countdown isn't running
sec_counter = 500;
countDownFlag = true;
...
// Countdown finished
countDownFlag = false;
You need an extra variable and is better to wrap everything in a function:
void startCountDown(int startValue)
{
sec_counter = 500;
countDownFlag = true;
}
This way you abstract the starting method (and hide ugliness if needed). For example you can easily change it to start a hardware timer without affecting the callers of the method.
Write the value then check that it is the value required would seem to be the simplest alternative.
do {
sec_counter = value;
} while (sec_counter != value);
BTW you should make the variable volatile if using C.
If you need to read the value then you can read it twice.
do {
value = sec_counter;
} while (value != sec_counter);
Because accesses to the sec_counter variable are not atomic, there's really no way to avoid disabling interrupts before accessing this variable in your mainline code and restoring interrupt state after the access if you want deterministic behavior. This would probably be a better choice than dedicating a HW timer for this task (unless you have a surplus of timers, in which case you might as well use one).
If you download Microchip's free TCP/IP Stack there are routines in there that use a timer overflow to keep track of elapsed time. Specifically "tick.c" and "tick.h". Just copy those files over to your project.
Inside those files you can see how they do it.
It's not so curious about the less than 256 moves being atomic - moving an 8 bit value is one opcode so that's as atomic as you get.
The best solution on such a microcontroller as the PIC is to disable interrupts before you change the timer value. You can even check the value of the interrupt flag when you change the variable in the main loop and handle it if you want. Make it a function that changes the value of the variable and you could even call it from the ISR as well.
Well, what does the comparison assembly code look like?
Taken to account that it counts downwards, and that it's just a zero compare, it should be safe if it first checks the MSB, then the LSB. There could be corruption, but it doesn't really matter if it comes in the middle between 0x100 and 0xff and the corrupted compare value is 0x1ff.
The way you are using your timer now, it won't count whole seconds anyway, because you might change it in the middle of a cycle.
So, if you don't care about it. The best way, in my opinion, would be to read the value, and then just compare the difference. It takes a couple of OPs more, but has no multi-threading problems.(Since the timer has priority)
If you are more strict about the time value, I would automatically disable the timer once it counts down to 0, and clear the internal counter of the timer and activate once you need it.
Move the code portion that would be on the main() to a proper function, and have it conditionally called by the ISR.
Also, to avoid any sort of delaying or missing ticks, choose this timer ISR to be a high-prio interrupt (the PIC18 has two levels).
One approach is to have an interrupt keep a byte variable, and have something else which gets called at least once every 256 times the counter is hit; do something like:
// ub==unsigned char; ui==unsigned int; ul==unsigned long
ub now_ctr; // This one is hit by the interrupt
ub prev_ctr;
ul big_ctr;
void poll_counter(void)
{
ub delta_ctr;
delta_ctr = (ub)(now_ctr-prev_ctr);
big_ctr += delta_ctr;
prev_ctr += delta_ctr;
}
A slight variation, if you don't mind forcing the interrupt's counter to stay in sync with the LSB of your big counter:
ul big_ctr;
void poll_counter(void)
{
big_ctr += (ub)(now_ctr - big_ctr);
}
No one addressed the issue of reading multibyte hardware registers (for example a timer.
The timer could roll over and increment its second byte while you're reading it.
Say it's 0x0001ffff and you read it. You might get 0x0010ffff, or 0x00010000.
The 16 bit peripheral register is volatile to your code.
For any volatile "variables", I use the double read technique.
do {
t = timer;
} while (t != timer);