Hi,
> When using TSE=event# do be aware that there are several potential
> races. One is that the data update from your digitizer driver may
> arrive and be processed before the updated event timestamp from the EVR.
At LCLS, we minimize this race condition by having all event codes come to the EVR well before beam (~1msec before beam) and thus well before most triggers. We also have the thread that captures timestamps (and inserts pulse ID in lower 17 bits) running at a higher priority that the epics callback tasks. But you are right in that there is a potential race condition, especially for devices with a short timing delays. There are timestamp checks in the LCLS beam-synchronous-acquisition (BSA) software that catch these kind of things. If the event timestamp hasn't changed since the last processing time or if the event timestamp doesn't match the expected global BSA timestamp, the data is not used and the appropriate error counters are incremented.
Stephanie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Michael Davidsaver
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 9:03 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Proposed change in asyn - request for comments
>
> On 5/30/2012 11:23 AM, Eric Norum wrote:
> > ... Also, I don't think that TSE=-2 is the right choice for this setup
> > -- the digitizers don't supply the time stamp. I think that you'd be
> > better off setting the waveform record TSE=<the number of some event
> > in your timing system event receiver associated with the pulse>.
>
> When using TSE=event# do be aware that there are several potential
> races. One is that the data update from your digitizer driver may
> arrive and be processed before the updated event timestamp from the EVR.
>
> This should be avoidable in an RTOS if the interrupt and thread
> priorities for the two drivers (digitizer and EVR) are picked appropriately.
>
>
> Michael
- References:
- Proposed change in asyn - request for comments Mark Rivers
- Re: Proposed change in asyn - request for comments Ernest L. Williams Jr.
- Re: Proposed change in asyn - request for comments Eric Norum
- Re: Proposed change in asyn - request for comments Michael Davidsaver
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: calc VAL field not updating from bi VAL field J. Lewis Muir
- Next:
RE: Proposed change in asyn - request for comments Allison, Stephanie
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
<2012>
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: Proposed change in asyn - request for comments Michael Davidsaver
- Next:
RE: Proposed change in asyn - request for comments Mark Rivers
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
<2012>
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|