Message-Id: <200910051245.37688@blacky.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:45:30 +0400
From:	"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <yoush@...msu.su>
To:	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stas Bezzubtsev <stas@....cs.msu.su>,
	Alexander Gordeev <lasaine@....cs.msu.su>
Subject: Please advice on realtime application architecture

Hi

I'm currently trying to port a realtime application from an in-house RT 
kernel to something standard, preferrably preempt-rt linux.

Application controls a set of i/o cards with some data computed in 
realtime.
The cards are relatively slow:
- single word transmit with inl()/outl() or ioread32()/iowrite32() takes a 
microsecond or more;
- setting up single i/o request requires up to several tens of these word 
operations;
- large number of i/o operations has to be programmed on several devices in 
parallel.
- in total, significant portion of raw CPU time (20% or more) is needed to 
execute raw hardware-control operations.

Application can generate a large number [hundreds] of i/o requests at a 
lime, however later it could "change it's mind" and decide to change some 
of those, or cancel the queue altogether.

Writing all generated i/o requests to hardware at a time is not feasible 
since it will use enough CPU to make the main application miss it's 
deadlines. Also, writing requests that will be later changed or cancelled 
is a pure waste of CPU time.

So we once implemented "late/lazy hardware control".
There was a thread dedicated to hardware control, that:
- normally worked as an idle thread;
- but got highest priority in case of i/o operation not programmed yet when 
hardware should execute it "soon".

That worked well in our previous environment where thread rescheduling was 
very fast and lightweight.

And now we want to move to rt-preempt linux.

Here is bit more abstract model of the situation.
- there is a stream of "requests" that have to be executed on CPU;
- each request has a deadline, missing that deadline is absolutely 
unacceptable;
- for each "request", approximate CPU time is more or less known; normally 
is is between 10 and 40 microseconds;
- number of requests is large, total execution of those consumes 20% of raw 
cpu time or even more;
- deadlines are distributed more or less uniform over the time;
- requests arre async, NOT periodic;
- in common case, request arrives long before deadline (99% of requests - 
more than 500us, 70% of requests - more than 5 ms), but in some rare cases 
time left between request arrive and deadline could be 100us or less 
[although the lower margin could be probably increased by some changes at 
highlevel]; 
- request may be cancelled by application; that may happen at any moment up 
to the deadline;
- this request cancellation is a common case (say 30% of all requests get 
cancelled)
- running cancelled request is no harm other than wasting CPU time;
- requests are preemptible by nature, however preempted request will have 
to continue execution when resumed even if cancelled in meantime; 
- monopolizong CPU for request execution for more than several tens of 
microseconds should be avoided when possible.

This will likely run on x86-based industrial computers.
Dedication a cpu core to request processing does not look good: want to 
make use of 80% of core's time not spent by to request processing; also 
unsure that all installations of the system will have several cores.

A naive implementation may have a kernel thread running requests, with EDF 
ordering; priority of the thread may be normally low, but raised to 
SCHED_FIFO 99 from an hrtimer if deadlines become near, and lowered back 
when no near deadlines.

However, there is a concern that if trying not to monopolize cpu too much, 
hrtimer and reschedule overhead will become larger than actual request 
execution time.

So I'm looking for some advice on how to implement the request processing. 
Maybe there are some better ways than "naive implementation" described 
above? What do you think?

Many thanks for any advice.

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists