Just as a side note, when you run recv() and send() from different Python threads, the underlying C++ code that gets into will release the Python GIL, which allows for true concurrency even with thread vs. multiprocessing.
--M On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 1:51 PM Pedro Vieira <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tim, What equipment are you using? What is the interface? As an initial > suggestion, try using multiprocessing, so that the two codes can be > executed on different cores simultaneously, because when using threads, the > execution of the codes, in Python, is not simultaneous. The following link > explains it better https://youtu.be/AZnGRKFUU0c?si=rKpVhZSJYyuOjPiG Hugs > > Em qui., 12 de dez. de 2024, 09:25, Tim Vancauwenbergh < > [email protected]> escreveu: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am working with the UHD Python API to handle burst-mode data >> transmission and reception. Both the transmitter and receiver are set to be >> active at specific times, for a fixed number of samples per burst. This >> process occurs approximately 100 times per second. >> >> Currently, the transmit and receive processes are handled in separate >> threads, where they wait for a timestamp to start their respective >> operations. When both are finished, a new loop begins. The waiting however >> can create some late commands. I would like to process the buffer >> separately. >> >> For each RX burst, the following function is called: >> *rx_buffer_size = int(5000) # each recv is 500 samples, but we want more >> space for multiple bursts* >> *rx_buffer = np.zeros(rx_buffer_size, dtype=np.complex64)* >> >> *def rx(start_time, rx_streamer, rx_buffer, rx_metadata):* >> * global rx_time* >> * rx_stream_cmd = uhd.types.StreamCMD(uhd.types.StreamMode.num_done)* >> * rx_stream_cmd.num_samps = 500* >> * rx_stream_cmd.stream_now = False* >> * rx_stream_cmd.time_spec = start_time* >> * rx_streamer.issue_stream_cmd(rx_stream_cmd)* >> >> * num_rx_samps = rx_streamer.recv(rx_buffer, rx_metadata, timeout=1.0)* >> * rx_time = rx_metadata.time_spec.get_real_secs()* >> >> Each receive burst consists of exactly 500 samples. However, this >> approach feels inefficient as I am processing each burst individually. My >> goal is to: >> >> 1. *Optimize Efficiency*: Fill a larger buffer with multiple bursts >> (e.g., 10 bursts = 5000 samples) before processing. >> 2. *Preserve Timestamps*: Retain the metadata timestamp for each >> burst (i.e., every 500th sample) within the larger buffer. >> >> For example, if a buffer holds 10 bursts, I would like: >> >> - The buffer to contain 5000 samples. >> - To retrieve the rx_metadata timestamp for the first sample of each >> burst (at indices 0, 500, 1000, ...). >> >> How can I achieve this efficiently while ensuring accurate timestamp >> extraction for each burst? >> >> Best regards, >> Tim >> _______________________________________________ >> USRP-users mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > USRP-users mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ USRP-users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
