 | | Re: DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
(...) An interesting idea. Presumably a light sensor alone would suffice, as it could be switched between active/passive mode to turn the LED on/off. You couldn't get high bandwidth, but there wouldn't be interference. Also, this would take multiple (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: brickOS with BricxCC
|
|
(...) Well, I guess I am one of the two :) Its nice to know I am on the cutting edge of things. Actually I am probably one of the few BrickOS users that is too dumb or impatient to deal with cygwin or unix. (...) Seems fine to me. I think all we (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | MIDI conversion
|
|
I have added a feature to BricxCC to convert MIDI files to NQC, MindScript, LASM, brickOS C, and brickOS Pascal code. It seems to work quite well with the first three languages (i.e., the sound generated by the RCX closely resembles the MIDI file (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) I forgot to mention... This is *almost* the same as moving some of the subsystem code into a seperate high priority task. For example, LCD refresh code is executed in the 1ms timer ISR. It really doesn't need to be in the ISR. It can do it's (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) 250msec? Not blocked entirely, but delayed. That's what I meant by "stutter". I've measured the general interrupt handler to take anywhere from 70-150us. So, the higher the sample rate the more significant the disruption. Anything faster than (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | RE: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) I have been following this thread in my peripheral vision for a while now. All of the talk is very interesting and appears to be leading to a general question about how and why the drivers are the way they are.... As a point of interest, some (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
Hi there, did some worh with rcx/legos/DSM in my thesis which can be found at www.cs.uit.no/~kenne.../Thesis.ps Although i didnt share the memory of each rcx, i installed a dsm server(created at the local university) on a notebook which each rcx (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
Mark Riley wrote: > Actually, if we move the sys_time > handler back to OCRA (instead of the watchdog NMI), > then we could just check if bit 0 of sys_time is zero to > determine if the subsystem handler should be called (plus > this will get (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
Yes Kekoa it's a bottle neck, as I wrote on the original message, the main idea is to distribute the load, with the MINIMUM amount of network traffic. I think that all the RCX should be connected through fibre optics, in order to implement the (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
Hi Marc, (...) Nice idea, but wouldn't that result in at least one of four cycles beeing blocked by OCRA? or is our system interrupt finished within less than 250msec? (...) Right, that was what I did for my Lepomux patch - works fine. Gunther (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) My thought was that the OCRA interrupt could be used as the general 1ms interrupt and the subsystem handler (which is currently using OCRB) could be called every other time from the OCRA handler by using a flag (toggled every 1ms). Actually, (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
Last year I built a robot which used multiple RCXs in the way you mention. I was building a sumo wrestling battle bot, and at some point ran out of sensor ports. For my sumo bot I'd built up some small abstraction layers around the sensors and (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
Just a question about this. Won't the IR airwaves will be a major bottleneck for most parallel applications? -Kekoa (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
OCRA and OCRB are output interrupts for the 16 bit timer. They can be programmed to fire at specific points along the timers run. So, technically, they cannot be used independently of each other. If OCRA resets the timer value back to zero, then (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
Hi all. I'm taking a course on parallel/distributed operating systems. So this post attempts to find out if someone has thought, or has implemented some kind of distributed application over BrickOS/legOS (from now legOS, for this post). I know (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) Timer B is usually unused but has a lower priority than Timer A. If you do a lot of stuff in the timer A routine, this will block timer B interrupts (especially if timer B generates more interrupts than timer A). The mean thing is that those (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
From the second scope screen capture here : (URL) you can see that the analog settling time is about 10 microseconds for the rotation sensor. Philo www.philohome.com (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) I've found that any interrupt on the RCX has a minimum overhead of 101 to 113 states (or about 7 us). This is the time taken by the CPU to recognize and dispatch the interrupt plus the time the ROM routine takes to dispatch the interrupt to (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
Joe, That's definitely an improvement! So, that would be a 250 Hz sample rate for any given sensor. I just tried a modification similar to yours that did all 4 conversions every OCRA/B interrupt (or 1 KHz sample rate) and got: IDLE: 82 2ROT: 77 (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
I did some "real world" tests with this update. I was Astounded at what a difference it makes. The bot I was testing with is a killough platform; which I had tried for hours previously, to get it to follow a line smoothly. I think BrickOS was giving (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
