I'm trying synchronise a bundle of signals between 2 modules in different clock domain. I can do it by manually instantiating AsyncQueue between them , and also take care of hooking the clock & reset for each side. It seems like there is a seem-less way to do that with AsyncBundle and I need some guidelines on understanding how to do it.
in source side (at clkA) I have :
val ioA = IO(Decoupled(UInt(32.W))
On the sink side (at clkB) I have:
val ioB = IO(Decoupled(UInt(32.W).flip)
So it make sense (I'm not sure the below code s correct) to do some thing like this:
// in module A
val ioA = IO(new AsyncBundle(Decoupled(UInt(32.W))))
// in module B
val ioB = IO (new AsyncBundle(Decoupled(UInt(32.W)).flip)
// and somewhere in a module that contains both modules
b.io <> FromAsyncBundle(a.io)
does the above make sense? also I've noticed that FromAsyncBundle creates a DecoupledIO does it replace the one i defined in the bundle or is it just for crossing?
if it does replace how do I drive it, for example push data & valid from some logic.
What about the clock which clock each side of the crossing will get ?
Related
I'm using Tensorboard to see the progress of the PettingZoo environment that my agents are playing. I can see the reward go up with time, which is good, but I'd like to add other metrics that are specific to my environment. i.e. I'd like TensorBoard to show me more charts with my metrics and how they improve over time.
The only way I could figure out how to do that was by inserting a few lines into the learn method of OnPolicyAlgorithm that's part of SB3. This works and I got the charts I wanted:
(The two bottom charts are the ones I added.)
But obviously editing library code isn't a good practice. I should make the modifications in my own code, not in the libraries. Is there currently a more elegant way to add a metric from my PettingZoo environment into TensorBoard?
You can add a callback to add your own logs. See the below example. In this case the call back is called every step. There are other callbacks that you case use depending on your use case.
import numpy as np
from stable_baselines3 import SAC
from stable_baselines3.common.callbacks import BaseCallback
model = SAC("MlpPolicy", "Pendulum-v1", tensorboard_log="/tmp/sac/", verbose=1)
class TensorboardCallback(BaseCallback):
"""
Custom callback for plotting additional values in tensorboard.
"""
def __init__(self, verbose=0):
super(TensorboardCallback, self).__init__(verbose)
def _on_step(self) -> bool:
# Log scalar value (here a random variable)
value = np.random.random()
self.logger.record('random_value', value)
return True
model.learn(50000, callback=TensorboardCallback())
I want to interface with a full AXI crossbar whose ports
look roughly like the following:
input [(NM * AXI_DATA_WIDTH) - 1:0] S_AXI_XYZ0,
...
output [(NS * AXI_SOMETHING_WIDTH - 1:0] M_AXI_XYZ0
...
where NM denotes the number of masters and NS denotes
the number of slaves. As you can imagine, each of the ports of
the crossbar will only partially connected to each slave/master.
Now, Ideally I'd like to define a Chisel Bundle like
class AxiXbar(val AXI_DATA_WIDTH: Int, val NS: Int, ...) extends Bundle {
val S_AXI_XYZ0 = Vec(NS, UInt(AXI_DATA_WIDTH))
...
}
but as soon as I use that in order to give a Blackbox
its interface
class MyXbar extends Blackbox {
val io = IO(new AxiXbar)
}
Chisel will try to verilogify MyXbar to something like
MyXbar inst #(...) (
...
.S_AXI_XYZ0_0(foo_wire_0)
.S_AXI_XYZ0_1(foo_wire_0)
...
)
This is fine when Chisel generates the complete design, but
when interfacing with a Blackbox module,
I need Chisel to flatten the Chisel Vec into
only one S_AXI_XYZ0 port instead. How can I achieve that?
I am aware that Chisel3 supports DataView as method to
change the "shape" of a interface bundle, but in their DataView Cookbook they state that subword viewing (split/concat) is not yet supported.
I tried to use Chisel's cast macros asType(...) or asUInt. Without success though as I do not fully grasp what they do under the hood. As such it is hard to apply them correctly.
I need to repeatly create some modules, which are completely same.
In the following code, I fill two same lists with N same modules.
MIM_N_cell = []
MIM_S_cell = []
for i in range(self.num_layers - 1):
new_MIM_N_cell = MIM_NS_cell(input_dim=self.hidden_dim,
hidden_dim=self.hidden_dim,
kernel_size=self.kernel_size,
model_cfg=model_cfg)
new_MIM_S_cell = MIM_NS_cell(input_dim=self.hidden_dim,
hidden_dim=self.hidden_dim,
kernel_size=self.kernel_size,
model_cfg=model_cfg)
MIM_N_cell.append(new_MIM_N_cell)
MIM_S_cell.append(new_MIM_S_cell)
self.MIM_N_cell = nn.ModuleList(MIM_N_cell)
self.MIM_S_cell = nn.ModuleList(MIM_S_cell)
Should I use .clone() instead of creating a new module each time?
I guess cloning may be faster but I am not aware of the side affects of it. If it worth to clone, how to use it safely (i.e. don't change the training/testing behaviour of the network)
We are working on a Top-Down-RPG-like Multiplayer game for learning purposes (and fun!) with some friends. We already have some Entities in the Game and Inputs are working, but the network implementation gives us headache :D
The Issues
When trying to convert with dict some values will still contain the pygame.Surface, which I dont want to transfer and it causes errors when trying to jsonfy them. Other objects I would like to transfer in a simplyfied way like Rectangle cannot be converted automatically.
Already functional
Client-Server connection
Transfering JSON objects in both directions
Async networking and synchronized putting into a Queue
Situation
A new player connects to the server and wants to get the current game state with all objects.
Data-Structure
We use a "Entity-Component" based architecture, so we separated the game logic very strictly into "systems", while the data is stored in the "components" of each Entity. The Entity is a very simple container and has nothing more than a ID and a list of components. Example Entity (shorten for better readability):
Entity
|-- Component (Moveable)
|-- Component (Graphic)
| |- complex datatypes like pygame.SURFACE
| `- (...)
`- Component (Inventory)
We tried different approaches, but all seems not to fit very well or feel "hacky".
pickle
Very Python near, so not easy to implement other clients in future. And I´ve read about some security risks when creating items from network in this dynamic way how pickle it offers. It does not even solve the Surface/Rectangle issue.
__dict__
Still contains the reference to the old objects, so a "cleanup" or "filter" for unwanted datatypes happens also in the origin. A deepcopy throws Exception.
...\Python\Python36\lib\copy.py", line 169, in deepcopy
rv = reductor(4)
TypeError: can't pickle pygame.Surface objects
Show some code
The method of the "EnitityManager" Class which should generate the Snapshot of all Entities, including their components. This Snapshot should be converted to JSON without any errors - and if possible without much configuration in this core-class.
class EnitityManager:
def generate_world_snapshot(self):
""" Returns a dictionary with all Entities and their components to send
this to the client. This function will probably generate a lot of data,
but, its to send the whole current game state when a new player
connects or when a complete refresh is required """
# It should be possible to add more objects to the snapshot, so we
# create our own Snapshot-Datastructure
result = {'entities': {}}
entities = self.get_all_entities()
for e in entities:
result['entities'][e.id] = deepcopy(e.__dict__)
# Components are Objects, but dictionary is required for transfer
cmp_obj_list = result['entities'][e.id]['components']
# Empty the current list of components, its going to be filled with
# dictionaries of each cmp which are cleaned for the dump, because
# of the errors directly coverting the whole datastructure to JSON
result['entities'][e.id]['components'] = {}
for cmp in cmp_obj_list:
cmp_copy = deepcopy(cmp)
cmp_dict = cmp_copy.__dict__
# Only list, dict, int, str, float and None will stay, while
# other Types are being simply deleted including their key
# Lists and directories will be cleaned ob recursive as well
cmp_dict = self.clean_complex_recursive(cmp_dict)
result['entities'][e.id]['components'][type(cmp_copy).__name__] \
= cmp_dict
logging.debug("EntityMgr: Entity#3: %s" % result['entities'][3])
return result
Expectation and actual results
We can find a way to manually override elements which we dont want. But as the list of components will increase we have to put all the filter logic into this core class, which should not contain any components specializations.
Do we really have to put all the logic into the EntityManager for filtering the right objects? This does not feel good, as I would like to have all convertion to JSON done without any hardcoded configuration.
How to convert all this complex data in a most generic approach?
Thanks for reading so far and thank you very much for your help in advance!
Interesting articles which we were already working threw and maybe helpful for others with similar issues
https://gafferongames.com/post/what_every_programmer_needs_to_know_about_game_networking/
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/408859/
https://docs.python.org/3/library/pickle.html
UPDATE: Solution - thx 2 sloth
We used a combination of the following architecture, which works really great so far and is also good to maintain!
Entity Manager now calls the get_state() function of the entity.
class EntitiyManager:
def generate_world_snapshot(self):
""" Returns a dictionary with all Entities and their components to send
this to the client. This function will probably generate a lot of data,
but, its to send the whole current game state when a new player
connects or when a complete refresh is required """
# It should be possible to add more objects to the snapshot, so we
# create our own Snapshot-Datastructure
result = {'entities': {}}
entities = self.get_all_entities()
for e in entities:
result['entities'][e.id] = e.get_state()
return result
The Entity has only some basic attributes to add to the state and forwards the get_state() call to all the Components:
class Entity:
def get_state(self):
state = {'name': self.name, 'id': self.id, 'components': {}}
for cmp in self.components:
state['components'][type(cmp).__name__] = cmp.get_state()
return state
The components itself now inherit their get_state() method from their new superclass components, which simply cares about all simple datatypes:
class Component:
def __init__(self):
logging.debug('generic component created')
def get_state(self):
state = {}
for attr, value in self.__dict__.items():
if value is None or isinstance(value, (str, int, float, bool)):
state[attr] = value
elif isinstance(value, (list, dict)):
# logging.warn("Generating state: not supporting lists yet")
pass
return state
class GraphicComponent(Component):
# (...)
Now every developer has the opportunity to overlay this function to create a more detailed get_state() function for complex types directly in the Component Classes (like Graphic, Movement, Inventory, etc.) if it is required to safe the state in a more accurate way - which is a huge thing for maintaining the code in future, to have these code pieces in one Class.
Next step is to implement the static method for creating the items from the state in the same Class. This makes this working really smooth.
Thank you so much sloth for your help.
Do we really have to put all the logic into the EntityManager for filtering the right objects?
No, you should use polymorphism.
You need a way to represent your game state in a form that can be shared between different systems; so maybe give your components a method that will return all of their state, and a factory method that allows you create the component instances out of that very state.
(Python already has the __repr__ magic method, but you don't have to use it)
So instead of doing all the filtering in the entity manager, just let him call this new method on all components and let each component decide that the result will look like.
Something like this:
...
result = {'entities': {}}
entities = self.get_all_entities()
for e in entities:
result['entities'][e.id] = {'components': {}}
for cmp in e.components:
result['entities'][e.id]['components'][type(cmp).__name__] = cmp.get_state()
...
And a component could implement it like this:
class GraphicComponent:
def __init__(self, pos=...):
self.image = ...
self.rect = ...
self.whatever = ...
def get_state(self):
return { 'pos_x': self.rect.x, 'pos_y': self.rect.y, 'image': 'name_of_image.jpg' }
#staticmethod
def from_state(state):
return GraphicComponent(pos=(state.pos_x, state.pos_y), ...)
And a client's EntityManager that recieves the state from the server would iterate for the component list of each entity and call from_state to create the instances.
I had made a daemon that used a very primitive form of ipc (telnet and send a String that had certain words in a certain order). I snapped out of it and am now using JSON to pass messages to a Yesod server. However, there were some things I really liked about my design, and I'm not sure what my choices are now.
Here's what I was doing:
buildManager :: Phase -> IO ()
buildManager phase = do
let buildSeq = findSeq phase
jid = JobID $ pack "8"
config = MkConfig $ Just jid
flip C.catch exceptionHandler $
runReaderT (sequence_ $ buildSeq <*> stages) config
-- ^^ I would really like to keep the above line of code, or something like it.
return ()
each function in buildSeq looked like this
foo :: Stage -> ReaderT Config IO ()
data Config = MkConfig (Either JobID Product) BaseDir JobMap
JobMap is a TMVar Map that tracks information about current jobs.
so now, what I have are Handlers, that all look like this
foo :: Handler RepJson
foo represents a command for my daemon, each handler may have to process a different JSON object.
What I would like to do is send one JSON object that represents success, and another JSON object that espresses information about some exception.
I would like foos helper function to be able to return an Either, but I'm not sure how I get that, plus the ability to terminate evaluation of my list of actions, buildSeq.
Here's the only choice I see
1) make sure exceptionHandler is in Handler. Put JobMap in the App record. Using getYesod alter the appropriate value in JobMap indicating details about the exception,
which can then be accessed by foo
Is there a better way?
What are my other choices?
Edit: For clarity, I will explain the role ofHandler RepJson. The server needs some way to accept commands such as build stop report. The client needs some way of knowing the results of these commands. I have chosen JSON as the medium with which the server and client communicate with each other. I'm using the Handler type just to manage the JSON in/out and nothing more.
Philosophically speaking, in the Haskell/Yesod world you want to pass the values forward, rather than return them backwards. So instead of having the handlers return a value, have them call forwards to the next step in the process, which may be to generate an exception.
Remember that you can bundle any amount of future actions into a single object, so you can pass a continuation object to your handlers and foos that basically tells them, "After you are done, run this blob of code." That way they can be void and return nothing.