Skip to content

docs: lifecycle feature #1246

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

docs: lifecycle feature #1246

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ramceb
Copy link
Contributor

@ramceb ramceb commented Jun 18, 2025

Feature: #909

@ramceb ramceb linked an issue Jun 18, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@ramceb ramceb force-pushed the feature-request-lifecycle branch from db8bef4 to c2bbad4 Compare June 18, 2025 06:28
Copy link

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

@ramceb ramceb force-pushed the feature-request-lifecycle branch 2 times, most recently from 4e1e0b1 to 1d2caff Compare June 24, 2025 07:23
Copy link
Contributor

@FScholPer FScholPer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Coming from FEO Error Handling:

  • maximum threshold until startup done should be handled. Do we have a definition for hard/soft thresholds? -> handle same or not?
  • In this phase memory allocation is problematic and should end up in error state
  • There should be some kind of error or emergency state and safety related problems should be handled
  • There should be also some kind of suspend error handling and reset state of activities in the chain
  • Not only state errors should be handled.
  • Activities can raise errors and also problems regarding com API or external Ressources like GPU/NPU should be handled.
  • Abrupt shut down of GPUs for example can lead to memory/cache incomplete / inconsistent or corrupted state there.
  • Timing above configured thresholds should raise errors. There is a difference between Estimated worst-case Execution time, actual Worst-Case Execution time and Theoretical Worst-Case Execution time. This depends on criticallty levels of activities. Also activities without any upper bound can exist and should not raise any error.
  • Logging in case of error is also a missing part .
  • Safety error reporting should also use another channel like the normal communication to prevent interference in case of safety problems.
  • Errors can change the flow to some kind of degragation or emergency flow. This is not defined currently.
  • Do we want to handle SoC problems like undervoltage, overvoltage, temperature and so on?
  • Error handling of different ASIL levels should not interfere or share same resources
  • Freeing resources should be part of the middleware -> Error handling if not possible
  • On startup resource exhaustion should lead to emergency state
  • Validation step for the graph is needed to ensure things like connections are correct or strange relationships found before start > error thrown
  • I think we need error handling as stakeholder requirement

@ramceb ramceb force-pushed the feature-request-lifecycle branch 3 times, most recently from edb6613 to c0714ee Compare July 8, 2025 12:28
@vinodreddy-g vinodreddy-g force-pushed the feature-request-lifecycle branch from fa85986 to c41e880 Compare July 14, 2025 11:23
@jaakkomaho
Copy link

I think we could write a liitle bit more about the component dependencies:

  • how are dependeing components started?
  • How is a component "ready" so that the depending components are allowed to be started?
  • How are components getting shutdown? Provide examples of the "mode change" Probably it's a good idea to shutdown the apps in a reverse order of the startup
  • What kind of dependices are supported. For example, in PLMS you can have "session" and "stateless", in SystemD I think there are many relations, maybe we'll only pick a few of them

@ramceb ramceb requested a review from ZoranCutura July 28, 2025 13:17
@ramceb ramceb force-pushed the feature-request-lifecycle branch from 8b02873 to 9dd915c Compare July 28, 2025 13:25
FScholPer
FScholPer previously approved these changes Jul 29, 2025
vinodreddy-g
vinodreddy-g previously approved these changes Jul 29, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@ZoranCutura ZoranCutura left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor remarks on terms defined. Otherwise the concept is good.

.. glossary::

Launch Manager
Component to start and stop processes on a POSIX like operating system.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this actually start and stop processes or request the operating system to do so? see procmgr

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So far the launch manager is intended to do the fork.

@ramceb ramceb dismissed stale reviews from vinodreddy-g and FScholPer via 97829b6 July 31, 2025 16:28
@ramceb ramceb force-pushed the feature-request-lifecycle branch from 97829b6 to d06bf49 Compare August 1, 2025 14:44
@ramceb ramceb force-pushed the feature-request-lifecycle branch from d06bf49 to 0f10ac3 Compare August 1, 2025 14:52
@ramceb ramceb marked this pull request as ready for review August 1, 2025 14:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Feature Request for Health & Lifecycle
5 participants