EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  <20102011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  Index 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  <20102011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: monitors received out of order
From: Kate Feng <[email protected]>
To: Jeff Hill <[email protected]>
Cc: "'EPICS tech-talk'" <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:47:32 -0400
Hi Tim and Jeff,

Linux and Solaris are not real-time operating systems to ensure the order
of the events, unless there is a real-time extension (e.g. real-time Linux).
Another option is to rewrite the application code to ensure the order of events.
The code written for vxWorks usually relies on O.S. to ensure the order.
For a non real-time O.S., one would have to write extra code at the user
application level to ensure the order. If one uses EPICS, then EPICS
is considered as part of the application levels.


Cheers,
Kate

Jeff Hill wrote:
Hi Tim,

The Channel Access publish and subscribe system is a classic
consumer/producer situation. The producer is of course record
processing and the consumer is the Channel Access client side application. In basic queuing theory, it is known that no
matter how big the finite buffer capacity between the producer
and the consumer, all of it will be consumed if the production
rate is even a marginal amount faster than the consumption rate.
Furthermore, to prevent one client from disrupting subscription updates sent to another client, each client attaching to an IOC is serviced out of a per-client dedicated event queue connecting the higher priority database processing threads with the lower
priority per-client server threads. So to avoid consuming all
available memory this event queue is finite length, and if full
capacity is reached the last event on the queue for a particular
subscription is replaced; this has the net impact of causing an intermediate subscription update to be discarded.


So one can easily see, given the above design with intermediate events being discarded when the producer out-paces the consumer,
that events will sometimes be delivered out of order when comparing
different channel subscriptions, but that events will never be delivered out of order within a single channel subscription.


HTH

Jeff
______________________________________________________
Jeffrey O. Hill           Email        [email protected]
LANL MS H820              Voice        505 665 1831
Los Alamos NM 87545 USA   FAX          505 665 5107

Message content: TSPA

With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
as they fly overhead. -- RFC 1925


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Tim Mooney
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:10 PM
To: EPICS tech-talk
Subject: monitors received out of order

Dear folks,

I have two records, and a separate task monitoring a field that both
records
post, all in the same IOC.  Most of the time, my task receives monitors in
the
order in which they were posted.  But sometimes, the task receives a
monitor
from record B before it receives a previously posted monitor from record
A.
(I know for sure which record is posting first, because record A posts
before
causing record B to process.  Also, I've modified the record to set its
time
stamp immediately before posting, and I get another time stamp on entry to
the monitor routine.  The time ordering of those stamps does not agree.)
I've seen this on solaris and Linux, but not on vxWorks.

I have code that misbehaves when this happens, so I started digging around
and have convinced myself that I should not be relying on the time
ordering of
monitors received from different records (even when those records are
running
in the same task).  I now think I can rely on posts from a single record
arriving in
time order, but not posts from different records.  I think this because
events from
different record go into different queues, and there doesn't seem to be
any code
in the vicinity that seems worried about time ordering across event
queues.

Am I right about this?

--
Tim Mooney ([email protected]) (630)252-5417
Software Services Group, Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Lab.




References:
monitors received out of order Tim Mooney
RE: monitors received out of order Jeff Hill

Navigate by Date:
Prev: RE: monitors received out of order Jeff Hill
Next: Re: monitors received out of order Kate Feng
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  <20102011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: monitors received out of order Ralph Lange
Next: Re: monitors received out of order Ernest L. Williams Jr.
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  <20102011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 03 Nov 2010 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·