Say on a non-RT Linux kernel (4.14, Angstrom distro, running on iMX6) I have a program that receives UDP packets (< 1400 bytes) that come in at a very steady data rate. Basically,
the essence of the program is:
while (true)
{ recv( sockFd, ... );
update_loop_interval_histogram(); // O(1)
}
To minimize the maximally occuring delay time (loop intervals), I started my process with:
chrt --fifo 99 ./programName
setting the scheduler to a "real-time" mode SCHED_FIFO with highest priority.
the CPU affinity of my process is fixed to the 2nd core.
Next to that, I ran a benchmark program instance per core, deliberately getting the CPU load to 100%.
That way, I get a maximum loop interval of ~10ms (vs. ~25ms without SCHED_FIFO). The occurence of this is rare. During e.g. an hour runtime, the counts sum of all intervals <400µs divided by the sum of all counts of all other interval time occurences from 400µs to 10000µs is over 1.5 million.
But as rare as it is, it's still bad.
Is that the best one can reliably get on a non-RealTime Linux kernel, or are there further tweaks to be made to get to something like 5ms maximum interval time?
I am developing for the LinkIt Smart 7688 device by Mediatek. I need to do some timekeeping in a userspace application where I need at least 10ms resolution (preferably 1ms).
However every syscall I have tried returns values only with 1 second resolution. clock_gettime (tried all the different clocks) and gettimeofday which should provide sub-second resolution does not.
Doing a dmesg on the target reveals that the kernel timestamps with a resolution below 1 second, thus I conclude that a clock source is available with sub second resolution. (I would be very surpriced if this was not the case :) )
How do I get a timestamp with sub-second resolution on the Linkit Smart 7688 device?
Perhaps I could be missing some kernel configuration selecting the correct clock source to be available to userspace? I have not been able to find one.
Do not only use the seconds returned by gettimeofday, but also usec
gettimeofday(&t0, 0);
/* ... */
gettimeofday(&t1, 0);
long elapsed = (t1.tv_sec-t0.tv_sec)*1000000 + t1.tv_usec-t0.tv_usec;
I'm implementing a protocol over serial ports on Linux. The protocol is based on a request answer scheme so the throughput is limited by the time it takes to send a packet to a device and get an answer. The devices are mostly arm based and run Linux >= 3.0. I'm having troubles reducing the round trip time below 10ms (115200 baud, 8 data bit, no parity, 7 byte per message).
What IO interfaces will give me the lowest latency: select, poll, epoll or polling by hand with ioctl? Does blocking or non blocking IO impact latency?
I tried setting the low_latency flag with setserial. But it seemed like it had no effect.
Are there any other things I can try to reduce latency? Since I control all devices it would even be possible to patch the kernel, but its preferred not to.
---- Edit ----
The serial controller uses is an 16550A.
Request / answer schemes tends to be inefficient, and it shows up quickly on serial port. If you are interested in throughtput, look at windowed protocol, like kermit file sending protocol.
Now if you want to stick with your protocol and reduce latency, select, poll, read will all give you roughly the same latency, because as Andy Ross indicated, the real latency is in the hardware FIFO handling.
If you are lucky, you can tweak the driver behaviour without patching, but you still need to look at the driver code. However, having the ARM handle a 10 kHz interrupt rate will certainly not be good for the overall system performance...
Another options is to pad your packet so that you hit the FIFO threshold every time. It will also confirm that if it is or not a FIFO threshold problem.
10 msec # 115200 is enough to transmit 100 bytes (assuming 8N1), so what you are seeing is probably because the low_latency flag is not set. Try
setserial /dev/<tty_name> low_latency
It will set the low_latency flag, which is used by the kernel when moving data up in the tty layer:
void tty_flip_buffer_push(struct tty_struct *tty)
{
unsigned long flags;
spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
if (tty->buf.tail != NULL)
tty->buf.tail->commit = tty->buf.tail->used;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
if (tty->low_latency)
flush_to_ldisc(&tty->buf.work);
else
schedule_work(&tty->buf.work);
}
The schedule_work call might be responsible for the 10 msec latency you observe.
Having talked to to some more engineers about the topic I came to the conclusion that this problem is not solvable in user space. Since we need to cross the bridge into kernel land, we plan to implement an kernel module which talks our protocol and gives us latencies < 1ms.
--- edit ---
Turns out I was completely wrong. All that was necessary was to increase the kernel tick rate. The default 100 ticks added the 10ms delay. 1000Hz and a negative nice value for the serial process gives me the time behavior I wanted to reach.
Serial ports on linux are "wrapped" into unix-style terminal constructs, which hits you with 1 tick lag, i.e. 10ms. Try if stty -F /dev/ttySx raw low_latency helps, no guarantees though.
On a PC, you can go hardcore and talk to standard serial ports directly, issue setserial /dev/ttySx uart none to unbind linux driver from serial port hw and control the port via inb/outb to port registers. I've tried that, it works great.
The downside is you don't get interrupts when data arrives and you have to poll the register. often.
You should be able to do same on the arm device side, may be much harder on exotic serial port hw.
Here's what setserial does to set low latency on a file descriptor of a port:
ioctl(fd, TIOCGSERIAL, &serial);
serial.flags |= ASYNC_LOW_LATENCY;
ioctl(fd, TIOCSSERIAL, &serial);
In short: Use a USB adapter and ASYNC_LOW_LATENCY.
I've used a FT232RL based USB adapter on Modbus at 115.2 kbs.
I get about 5 transactions (to 4 devices) in about 20 mS total with ASYNC_LOW_LATENCY. This includes two transactions to a slow-poke device (4 mS response time).
Without ASYNC_LOW_LATENCY the total time is about 60 mS.
With FTDI USB adapters ASYNC_LOW_LATENCY sets the inter-character timer on the chip itself to 1 mS (instead of the default 16 mS).
I'm currently using a home-brewed USB adapter and I can set the latency for the adapter itself to whatever value I want. Setting it at 200 µS shaves another mS off that 20 mS.
None of those system calls have an effect on latency. If you want to read and write one byte as fast as possible from userspace, you really aren't going to do better than a simple read()/write() pair. Try replacing the serial stream with a socket from another userspace process and see if the latencies improve. If they don't, then your problems are CPU speed and hardware limitations.
Are you sure your hardware can do this at all? It's not uncommon to find UARTs with a buffer design that introduces many bytes worth of latency.
At those line speeds you should not be seeing latencies that large, regardless of how you check for readiness.
You need to make sure the serial port is in raw mode (so you do "noncanonical reads") and that VMIN and VTIME are set correctly. You want to make sure that VTIME is zero so that an inter-character timer never kicks in. I would probably start with setting VMIN to 1 and tune from there.
The syscall overhead is nothing compared to the time on the wire, so select() vs. poll(), etc. is unlikely to make a difference.
I have a system which uses a UART clocked at 26 Mhz. This is a 16850 UART on a i86 architecture. I have no problems accessing the port. The largest incoming message is about 56 bytes, the largest outgoing about 100. The baud rate divisor needs to be 1 so seterial /dev/ttyS4 baud_base 115200 is OK and opening at 115200. There is no flow control. Specifying part 16850 does NOT set the FIFO to deep. I was losing bytes. All the data is byte, unsigned char.
I wrote a routine that uses ioperm to set the deep FIFO's to 64 and now a read/write works meaning that the deep FIFO's are NOT being enabled by serial_core.c or 8250.c, at least in a deep manner.
With the deep FIFO set using s brute force, post open(fd, "/dev/ttyS4", NO_BLOCKING, etc I get reliably the correct number of bytes but I tend to get the same word missing a bit. Not a byte, a bit.
All this same stuff runs fine under DOS so it is not a hardware issue.
I have opened the port for raw, no delays, no party, 8 bits, 2 stop.
Has anyone seen issues reading serial ports are relatively high speeds with short bursts of data?
Yes, I have tried custom baud, etc. The FIFO levels made the biggest improvement. This is a ISA bus card using IRQ7.
It appears the serial driver for Linux sucks and has way to much latency and far to many features for really basic raw operation.
Has anyone else tried very high speed data without flow control or had similar issues. As I stated, I get the correct number of bytes and all the data is correct except 1 bit in byte 4.
I am pretty stumped.
I can understand that NAPI in Linux will change from interrupt to poll mode to handle the high packet rate.
NAPI uses weight to decide how many packets to process in each poll period; It also makes sure that the packet handling in each poll period is less than one jiffies.
However, I couldn't find in anywhere (google) what is the poll period of NAPI? Can we change the poll period to any value we want?
Thank you very much for any of your help!
From what I observe, it seems that NAPI's poll period is 2 second, but I want to make sure my observation is correct.
NAPI packet processing is controlled in two ways:
With the netdev_budget which is the total number of packets that can be processed. This can be tuned by setting the net.core.netdev_budget sysctl.
On Linux 4.12+, with netdev_budget_usecs which is the total time in microseconds that can be spent processing packets. The corresponding sysctl parameter is net.core.netdev_budget_usecs.
On Linux < 4.12, the sysctl does not exist and this value is hardcoded to 2 jiffies. It cannot be tuned.
I wrote a detailed blog post describing the Linux network stack in detail that may interest you and this section shows the code for the NAPI processing loop where the hardcoded timeout can be found.