RTAI: Real-Time Application Interface
Before jumping headlong into our discussion of RTAI, a quick review of what real time means and how standard Linux relates to real time is appropriate. The term “real time” can have significantly different meanings, depending on the audience and the nature of the application in question. However, computer science literature generally defines only two types: soft and hard real-time systems.
A “soft real-time system” is characterized by the ability to perform a task, which on average, is executed according to the desired schedule. A video display is a good example, where the loss of an occasional frame will not cause any perceived system degradation, providing the average case performance remains acceptable. Although techniques such as interpolation can be used to compensate for missing frames, the system remains a soft real-time system, because the actual data was missed, and the interpolated frame represents derived rather than actual data.
“Hard real-time systems” embody guaranteed timing, cannot miss timing deadlines and must have bounded latencies. Since deadlines can never be missed, a hard real-time system cannot use average case performance to compensate for worst-case performance. One example of a hard real-time task would be monitoring transducers in a nuclear reactor, which must use a complex digital control system in order to avoid disaster. RTAI provides these necessary hard real-time extensions to Linux, thus enabling it to be targeted at applications where the timing deadlines cannot be missed.
RTAI provides hard real-time extensions to Linux, yet standard Linux has support for the POSIX 1003.13 real-time extensions, so how does the “real-time” capability of standard Linux fall short?
The POSIX 1003.13 standard defines a “Multi-User Real-Time System Profile” which allows for “real-time” processes to be locked into memory to prevent the process from being paged to hard disk, and a special scheduler which ensures these processes are always executed in a predictable order.
Linux meets this standard by providing POSIX-compliant memory lock (mlock), special schedule (sched_setsched) system calls and POSIX RT signals. While those features do provide improved deterministic performance, the resultant tasks cannot be defined as hard real-time tasks, since the soft real-time process can be blocked by kernel activity.
The standard Linux real-time POSIX API and the real-time kernel offer dramatically distinct services, especially within a multi-user and multi-tasking application. A simple program in pseudo-code, shown in Listing 1, can be used to demonstrate the system performance and issues surrounding the POSIX approach.
This program reads the absolute time before entering a system call which is used to suspend the process for a predetermined interval. Next, the program reads the absolute time after the system call returns. If the system is heavily loaded with a high level of kernel activity, the return from the system call will be delayed by that activity, thus the magnitude of this delay is defined by the difference between the expected sleep time (i.e., 100 milliseconds) and the actual sleep time.
For a standard Linux system that is idle, the above task performance is extremely stable and the timing deviation is very low, yielding a worst-case deviation from an average of approximately 100 microseconds on a Pentium II 300MHz system.
However, if the program is run on a standard Linux system, using the same POSIX approach but with simultaneous I/O activity, the performance dramatically deteriorates, since the facilities of standard Linux do not allow any way for the test program to preempt the I/O-intensive application. The average execution quickly becomes unacceptable when, for example, one edits a very large file and causes hard disk activity at the same time the test program is running. This inability to preempt causes the test program to suffer typical deviations of 30 milliseconds, and for the worst case, in excess of hundreds of milliseconds. Consequently, standard Linux processes using the POSIX approach cannot be used for reliable hard real-time performance in multi-tasking environments.
Although members of the Linux community have discussed introducing a low-latency scheduler in future kernels to enhance soft real-time performance, standard Linux will still fall well short of the guaranteed response time required by a hard real-time task.
The performance advantage of real-time Linux is easily seen by running this same test program as a real-time task, yielding worst case deviations of less than 12.5 microseconds regardless of I/O activity.
Along with the scheduling benefits of the real-time kernel, the efficiency of the real-time architecture allows Linux to run under aggressive task iteration rates. For example, when running this program at 500-microsecond intervals as a POSIX real-time task, Linux stops completely. Running this program as a real-time task leaves enough resources for Linux to continue to run.
The operating requirements of a general-purpose operating system such as Linux are different from those of a hard real-time system. This difference leads to other issues, summarized below, which limit the potential for standard Linux to act as a real-time operating system.
The Linux kernel uses coarse-grained synchronization, which allows a kernel task exclusive access to some data for long periods. This delays the execution of any POSIX real-time task that needs access to that same data.
Linux does not preempt the execution of any task during system calls. If a low-priority process is in the middle of a fork system call and a message is received for the video display process, then the message will unfortunately be held in the queue until the call completes, despite its low priority. The solution is to add preemption points in the kernel, having the deleterious effect of slowing down all system calls.
Linux makes high-priority tasks wait for low-priority tasks to release resources. For example, if any process allocates the last network buffer and a higher-priority process needs a network buffer to send a message, the higher-priority process must wait until some other process releases a network buffer before it can send its message.
The Linux scheduling algorithm will sometimes give the most unimportant and nicest process a time slice, even in circumstances where a higher-priority process is executable. This is an artifact of a general-purpose operating system that ensures a background maintenance process; e.g., one that cleans up log files and runs even if a higher-priority process were able to use all the available processor time.
Linux reorders requests from multiple processes to use the hardware more efficiently. For example, hard-disk block reads from a lower-priority process may be given precedence over read requests from a higher-priority process in order to minimize disk-head movement or improve the chances of error recovery.
Linux will batch operations to use the hardware more efficiently. For example, instead of freeing one page at a time when memory gets tight, Linux will run through the list of pages, clearing out as many as possible, which will delay the execution of all processes. This is clearly desirable for a general-purpose operating system, but is undesirable for real-time processes.
Real-time and general-purpose operating systems have contradictory design requirements. A desirable effect in one system is often detrimental in the other.
Unfortunately, any attempt to satisfy both requirements in the same kernel often results in a system that does neither very well. That is not to say general-purpose functionality and real-time determinism cannot be achieved simultaneously. In fact, operating systems that combine these requirements exist now, and they are indeed deterministic, preemptive and contain bounded latencies (thus meeting the requirement for a hard real-time system). However, the worst-case behavior for those latencies can be unacceptably slow.
|Speed Up Your Web Site with Varnish||Jun 19, 2013|
|Non-Linux FOSS: libnotify, OS X Style||Jun 18, 2013|
|Containers—Not Virtual Machines—Are the Future Cloud||Jun 17, 2013|
|Lock-Free Multi-Producer Multi-Consumer Queue on Ring Buffer||Jun 12, 2013|
|Weechat, Irssi's Little Brother||Jun 11, 2013|
|One Tail Just Isn't Enough||Jun 07, 2013|
- Containers—Not Virtual Machines—Are the Future Cloud
- Non-Linux FOSS: libnotify, OS X Style
- Linux Systems Administrator
- Lock-Free Multi-Producer Multi-Consumer Queue on Ring Buffer
- Validate an E-Mail Address with PHP, the Right Way
- Technical Support Rep
- Senior Perl Developer
- UX Designer
- Introduction to MapReduce with Hadoop on Linux