<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>An option we are looking at for a work project is the STM32MP1XX
family of processors. <br>
<br>
It has a Arm A7 and Arm M4 in the same chip. The A7 runs Linux,
and the M4 is for the real-time stuff. They have a bus between the
two processors so they can look at the other's peripherals and
memory. <br>
<br>
They have a development board that is under $69 you could base a
Robot around. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/STM32MP157A-DK1/?qs=9r4v7xj2LnkgRwGGD4%252BIjQ%3D%3D">https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/STM32MP157A-DK1/?qs=9r4v7xj2LnkgRwGGD4%252BIjQ%3D%3D</a><br>
</p>
<p>It is relatively new, and not for the faint of heart. I would
recommend getting to understand the M4, the ST CubeIDE development
tools, and how ST does things with the HAL before you jump into
this beast. To program the M4, the IDE connects to Linux with
Ethernet copies it over, and the A7 writes to the M4 memory. <br>
<br>
<br>
When I was doing a resonant power supply we had a PID loop that
was executed every clock, between 25 and 100 kHz. Our goal was to
adjust the input voltage (on a slower loop) so the frequency was
50 kHz (resonance most efficient) and the clock by clock loop
would deal with abrupt current changes by changing the frequency
higher to shed power and make the frequency lower to provide more
power. We had to compensate for the sample time in the PID
equation. It is possible to do. But Python would not do it. <br>
<br>
We were dealing with a power supply for a laptop PC. Where to save
power they would shut parts of the processor and peripherals
completely off when not needed, lowering the current, and turning
things on quickly when needed causing the current to increase.
These events would happen randomly sometimes multiple times a
second. <br>
<br>
Kip<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/18/21 3:58 PM, David Anderson via
DPRGlist wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7a13d84e-177d-d38c-8b79-cfe709b45677@smu.edu">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Howdy,<br>
<br>
Not to be overly pedantic...<br>
<br>
But another solution to these timing problems is to use a micro
controller that is not running Linux to do your real time stuff.
The STM32 Nucleo board I'm using with an RTOS has a context switch
time which is reliably less than 10 us (which is actually the
least I can measure). <br>
<br>
I understand the arguments for using Linux. I've been using it
both at work and home since the early 1990s. But not on robots.
If the argument is that it makes robotly things easier, I'm not
sure anyone's experience bears that out.<br>
<br>
Right tool for the job, as the old guys use to say.<br>
<br>
cheers!<br>
dpa<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/18/21 11:03 AM, John Swindle via
DPRGlist wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1830267517.2943411.1613667783411@mail.yahoo.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<p style="background-color: #f4eaa5;color: #000000
;margin:5px;padding: 2px;text-align: left !important;
align-content: center; display: block; border: 1px solid
#000000; font-size: large; font-family: sans-serif;"><strong><em
style="font-size: 11px;"> [EXTERNAL SENDER]</em></strong></p>
<div style="color:black;font: 10pt Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif;">Going back to a previous topic regarding jitter
in timing intervals.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why can't parameters used in calculations be scaled by
the actual sample interval? I understand 50ms is chosen
because it gives optimum control without undue overhead.
When the actual interval is, say, 47ms, why not scale the
time-related parameters to 47/50 of what they nominally are,
just for that interval? If the next interval is 74ms, scale
the parameters to 74/50. Is this impractical? Is the
uncertainty of measuring the time interval too large? This
is, if Python says the time interval is 47ms, is the error,
say, +/- 10ms?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Related to this: If the sample-to-sample timing error is
large or jittery, but if you have confidence that the
long-term timing is 50ms per interval, then why can't the
current calculations be smoothed, assuming that each
calculation is jittery due to timing inaccuracy? Does the
robot really make snap decisions based on a single interval?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Most CPU datasheets require the clock to have 50 to
100ppm accuracy. That sounds good, but for audio processing,
it means streams coming from different sources will beat
with one another. I have to resample the streams to match
the actual sample rate of one of the streams. I use a
metronome signal that each gadget processes. That doesn't
mean any of the timings are correct (including the timing of
the metronome). It just means they are all forced to look
like they are the same. I say this because resampling is
like what I'm suggesting: Scale the calculations to the
actual interval.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Am I missing something here?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John Swindle</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black"><font
size="2">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Murray Altheim via DPRGlist <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:dprglist@lists.dprg.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><dprglist@lists.dprg.org></a><br>
To: Chris N <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:netterchris@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><netterchris@gmail.com></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:dprglist@lists.dprg.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">dprglist@lists.dprg.org</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:dprglist@lists.dprg.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><dprglist@lists.dprg.org></a><br>
Sent: Thu, Feb 11, 2021 4:06 am<br>
Subject: Re: [Dprglist] PID-tuned Clock in Python?<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">On 11/02/21 3:13 pm, Chris N wrote:> I
don’t think you have a “clock accuracy” issue. I’m
pretty sure<br clear="none">
> the hardware clocks, as in crystal + PLL etc., in
things like the<br clear="none">
> Pi, are plenty accurate for our needs.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Hi Chris,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
First, thanks very much, I appreciate your thoughtful
reply.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Yes, I understand that it's not the accuracy of the
Raspberry Pi's<br clear="none">
system clock that is in question, but the accuracy of
time loops<br clear="none">
when implemented in a Python application using a
single or multiple<br clear="none">
threads, executing within a time-sharing operating
system like Linux.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
This is clearly where a microcontroller (like an
Arduino, STM32,<br clear="none">
ESP32, Pico RP2040, etc.) has its advantages. As I
noted, my<br clear="none">
MacBook was actually worse than my Raspberry Pi, which
in this<br clear="none">
light is perhaps not so surprising, i.e., the
MacBook's processor<br clear="none">
is a lot busier.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
My 3.5GHz multi-core i7 workstation is clearly giving
at least a<br clear="none">
whole core to the Python application and not
struggling, so its<br clear="none">
performance is very close to expected norms. But
that's not the<br clear="none">
case on the Pi, where I'll actually be using this
timing loop.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
[...]<br clear="none">
> Now regarding the PID idea:<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Say we have a loop that we want to run at a fixed
rate. Say 20Hz / 50.0ms.<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Using PID to improve the timing accuracy of such
loops is certainly<br clear="none">
> an interesting idea, but I believe PID makes
things worse in this case.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I'm not clear that this is the case yet. My
observation was the the PID<br clear="none">
loop was improving things somewhat significantly, but
more on that below.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
> See output from your clock_test.py below. I ran
this on my Pi 3.<br clear="none">
> I deliberately used a tough background load to
amplify the effect <br clear="none">
> (stress –vm 4 –vm-bytes 128M) , but even with
normal loads the <br clear="none">
> negative effect of the PID can be observed, just
the errors would<br clear="none">
> be much smaller.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Agreed, understood.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
> In line 6 you can see the 27ms error. <br
clear="none">
> [...]<br clear="none">
> The reason I think PID is a bad idea here is
because the nature of<br clear="none">
> the disturbance is simply too random and its very
intermittent. <br clear="none">
> The best you can do really is to use basic loop
timing logic to <br clear="none">
> ensure that the next iteration starts at the
right time, despite<br clear="none">
> the fact that this iteration took an unusual
amount of time or <br clear="none">
> sleep() took an unusual amount of time. With PID
you end up > over-compensating and you are
effectively hurting the timing of<br clear="none">
> subsequent iterations.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I certainly agree based on both logic and my
observations that the<br clear="none">
disturbances are intermittent, and from the
perspective of the<br clear="none">
Python program (i.e., it not knowing what else is
running), would<br clear="none">
appear entirely randomly.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
But I'm not clear the PID loop is over-compensating in
those cases.<br clear="none">
When a disturbance is within one 20Hz clock cycle,
there is no real<br clear="none">
fix for that in software. I entirely agree with you in
those cases.<br clear="none">
But when the CPU is really busy with some longer-term
process and<br clear="none">
that activity extends say over several seconds, the
PID (I believe)<br clear="none">
would tend to compensate better than with no PID.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
> There are straight forward ways to deal with the
fact that <br clear="none">
> time.sleep(x) doesn’t sleep for exactly x amount
of time, and the<br clear="none">
> fact that the amount of work which needs to be
done every iteration<br clear="none">
> is not 100% constant. A python version of such a
fixed-rate loop > is here: <a shape="rect"
href="https://github.com/nettercm/timing%C2%A0%C2%A0"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/nettercm/timing
</a>I typically use<br clear="none">
> similar loop timing logic in other languages and
sometimes even <br clear="none">
> on a microcontroller.<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> In pseudo python it looks as follows. [...]<br
clear="none">
If I'm reading your code correctly, this is kinda what
I was doing<br clear="none">
before I adopted the PID into the mix. I had a fixed
trim value on<br clear="none">
the Rate, and when the 50ms loop was consistently a
bit slow or a<br clear="none">
bit fast I'd just modify the trim value. It was trying
to auto-correct<br clear="none">
that trim value that led me to using a PID loop. Now,
a fixed trim<br clear="none">
would obviously not take into account those nasty
intermittent surges<br clear="none">
or lags, but is certainly simpler to implement and a
lot less<br clear="none">
mysterious in use than a PID loop.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
So if the PID turns out to be causing actual problems
as you suggest,<br clear="none">
I can set the flag to disable it, and maybe
re-implement the fixed<br clear="none">
trim. I've been setting the PID's kp constant from an
RGB LED<br clear="none">
potentiometer like:<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect"
href="https://shop.pimoroni.com/products/rgb-potentiometer-breakout"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://shop.pimoroni.com/products/rgb-potentiometer-breakout</a><br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
so if I end up disabling the PID I could manually set
the trim from<br clear="none">
the potentiometer, then just fix it in my YAML
configuration. This<br clear="none">
would be a "best guess" on a fixed, constant trim
value.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I think we both agree that there's nothing anyone can
do to get a<br clear="none">
truly consistent loop using Python on Linux, but if
I'm willing to<br clear="none">
accept that those intermittent <50ms disturbances
are also unfixable,<br clear="none">
then the PID does still at least (IMO) manage the
longer lags and<br clear="none">
surges of the clock. This *seems* to be what I'm
seeing in the<br clear="none">
console outputs.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
The whole subject of PID is all a bit dream-catcher,
Voynich Manuscript,<br clear="none">
ouija board, patchouli incense kind of thing...
verra-mysterious.
<div class="yqt4755843592" id="yqtfd77735"><br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Cheers,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Murray<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
...........................................................................<br
clear="none">
Murray Altheim <murray18 at altheim dot com>
= = ===<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect"
href="http://www.altheim.com/murray/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.altheim.com/murray/
</a> === ===<br
clear="none">
= = ===<br clear="none">
In the evening<br clear="none">
The rice leaves in the garden<br clear="none">
Rustle in the autumn wind<br clear="none">
That blows through my reed hut.<br clear="none">
-- Minamoto no Tsunenobu<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
_______________________________________________<br
clear="none">
DPRGlist mailing list<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect"
ymailto="mailto:DPRGlist@lists.dprg.org"
href="mailto:DPRGlist@lists.dprg.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">DPRGlist@lists.dprg.org</a><br
clear="none">
<a shape="rect"
href="http://lists.dprg.org/listinfo.cgi/dprglist-dprg.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.dprg.org/listinfo.cgi/dprglist-dprg.org</a><br
clear="none">
</div>
</div>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
DPRGlist mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:DPRGlist@lists.dprg.org" moz-do-not-send="true">DPRGlist@lists.dprg.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.dprg.org/listinfo.cgi/dprglist-dprg.org" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.dprg.org/listinfo.cgi/dprglist-dprg.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
DPRGlist mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:DPRGlist@lists.dprg.org">DPRGlist@lists.dprg.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.dprg.org/listinfo.cgi/dprglist-dprg.org">http://lists.dprg.org/listinfo.cgi/dprglist-dprg.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>