Heyya,
I would like to what is the use of Software Watchdog and why they are used in controllers please..
Assuming you mean micro-controllers:
A watchdog timer (sometimes called a computer operating properly or COP timer, or simply a watchdog) is an electronic timer that is used to detect and recover from computer malfunctions.
Source
Related
I have ARM board at remote location. Some time I had a kernel panic error in it. At this same time there is no option to hardware restart. bus no one is available at this place to restart it.
I want to restart my board automatically after kernel panic error. so what to do in kernel.
If your hardware contains watchdog timer, then compile the kernel with watchdog support and configure it. I suggest to follow this blog http://www.jann.cc/2013/02/02/linux_watchdog.html
Caution :: I never tried this. If the problem is solved, request you to update here.
You can modify the panic() function kernel/panic.c to call the kernel_restart(*cmd) at the point you want it to restart (like probably after printing the required debug information).
I am assuming you are bringing up a board, so Please note that you need to supply the ops for the associated functions in machine_restart() - (called by kernel_restart) in accordance to the MACH . If you are just using the board as is , then i guess rebuilding the kernel with kernel_restart(*cmd) should do.
The panic() is usually due to events that the kernel can not recover from. If you do not have a watchdog, you need to look at your hardware to see if a GPIO, etc is connected to the RESET line. If so, you can toggle this pin to reboot the CPU. Trying to alter panic() may just make things worse, depending on the root cause and the type of features you use.
You may hook arm_pm_restart with your custom restart functionality. You can test it with the shell command reboot, if present. panic() should call the same routine. With current ARM Linux versions
You may wish to turn off the MMU and block interrupts in this routine. It will make it more resilient when called from panic(). As you are going to reset, you can copy the routine to any physical address you like.
The watchdog maybe better; it may catch cases where even panic() may not be called. You may have a watchdog and not realize it. Many Cortex-A CPUs, have one built in. It is fairly rare for hardware not to have a watchdog.
However, if you don't have the watchdog, you can use the GPIO mechanism above; hardware should usually provide someway for software to restart the device (and peripherals). The panic() maybe due to some mis-behaving device tromping memory, latched up DRAM/Flash, etc. Toggling a RESET line maybe better than a watchdog in this case; if the RESET is also connected to other hardware, besides the CPU.
Related: How to debug kernel freeze, How to change watchdog timer
AFAIK, a simple way to restart the board after kernel panic is to pass a kernel parameter (from the bootloader usually)
panic=1
The board will then auto-reboot '1' second(s) after a panic.
Search the Documentation for more.
Some examples from the documentation:
...
panic= [KNL] Kernel behaviour on panic: delay <timeout>
timeout > 0: seconds before rebooting
timeout = 0: wait forever
timeout < 0: reboot immediately
Format: <timeout>
...
oops=panic Always panic on oopses. Default is to just kill the
process, but there is a small probability of
deadlocking the machine.
This will also cause panics on machine check exceptions.
Useful together with panic=30 to trigger a reboot.
...
As suggested in previous comments watchdog timer is your friend here. If your hardware contains watchdog timer, Enable it in kernel option and configure it.
Other alternative is use Phidget. If you usb connection available at remote location. Phidget controller/software is used to control your board using USB. Check for board support.
I would like to know what is going on during sleep and wakeup process on OSx Kernel.
Does a Kernel extension receive a new address space and start all over again its initialization process or the kernel simply puts the extension back in the same address space?
Does internal kernel extensions (IOKit drivers for example) also behave the same? Perhaps they are loaded into a different location in the memory?
Basically the question is: will my driver, which obtained an interface to a IOService, will be able to use its address after sleep without a problem.
On sleep, memory is "frozen", and on resume, it's restored to its original state. So unless you actively participate in power management, your kext won't notice anything has changed. If you're dealing directly with hardware, you will HAVE to care about power management, though, as your device will have power-cycled and will need to be reinitialised.
I have intensive processing that I need to perform in a device driver, at DISPATCH_LEVEL or lower IRQL.
How do I create a kernel-thread?
What IRQL does it run at? Can I control this?
How is it scheduled? Because I am thinking from a user-mode perspective here, what priority does it run at?
What kernel functions can I use to provide locking / synchronization?
you can create system thread with this As you can see one of its parameters is a start routine which can hold custom code - in it you can use KeRaiseIrql and KeLowerIrql. By default threads will run in PASSIVE_LEVEL. "Locks, Deadlocks, and Synchronization" is a very helpful paper regarding synchronization in kernel on windows and everyone who has to do some tinkering with the windows kernel should read or at least skim it
How does one programmatically cause the OS to switch off, go away and stop doing anything at all so that a program may have complete control of a PC system?
I'm interested in doing this from both an MS Windows and Linux environments. Any languages or APIs considered.
I want the OS to stop preempting my program, stop its virtual memory management, stop its device drivers and interrupt service routines from running and basically just go away. Then, when my program has had its evil way with the bare metal, I want the OS to come back again without a reboot.
Is this even possible?
With Linux, you could use kexec jump to transfer control completely to another kernel (ie, your program). Of course, with great power comes great responsibility - it is entirely up to you to service interrupts, and avoid corrupting the old kernel's memory. You'll end up having to write your own OS kernel to do this. Also, the transfer of control takes quite some time, as the kernel has to de-initialize all hardware, then reinitialize it when it's time to resume. Since kexec jump was originally designed for hibernation support, this isn't a problem in its original context, but depending on what you're doing, it might be a problem.
You may want to consider instead working within the framework given to you by the OS - just write a normal driver for whatever you're doing.
Finally, one more option would be using the linux Real-Time patchset. This lets you assign static priorities to everything, even interrupt handlers; by running a process with higher priority than anything else, you could suspend /nearly/ everything - the system will still service a small stub for interrupts, as well as certain interrupts that can't be deferred, like timing interrupts, but for the most part the heavy work will be deferred until you relinquish control of the CPU.
Note that the RT patchset won't stop virtual memory and the like - mlockall will prevent page faults on valid pages though, if that's enough for you.
Also, keep in mind that whatever you do, the system BIOS can still cause SMM traps, which cannot be disabled, except by motherboard-model-specific methods.
There are lots of really ugly ways to do this. You could modify the running kernel by writing some trampoline code to /dev/kmem that passes control to your application. But I wouldn't recommend attempting something like that!
Basically, you would need to have your application act as its own operating system. If you want to read data from a file, you would have to figure out where the data lives on disk, and generate your own SCSI requests to talk to the disk drive. You would have to implement your own interrupt handler to get notified when the data is ready. Likewise you would have to handle page faults, memory allocation, etc. Most users feel that this isn't worth the effort...
Why do you want to do this?
Is there something that your application needs to do that the OS won't let it do? Are you concerned with the OS impact on performance? Something else?
If you don't mind shelling out some cash, you could use IntervalZero's RTX to do this for a Windows system. It's a hard realtime subsystem that gets installed on a Windows box as sort of a hack into the HAL and takes over the machine, letting Windows have whatever CPU cycles are left over.
It has its own scheduler and device drivers, but if you run your program at the top RTX priority, don't install any RTX device drivers (or disable interrupts for the duration), then nothing will interrupt it.
It also supports a small amount of interaction with programs on the Windows side.
We use it as a nice way to get a hard realtime box that runs Windows.
coLinux loads CoLinuxDriver into the NT kernel or a colinux.ko into the Linux kernel. It does exactly what you asked – it "unschedules" the host OS, and runs its own code, with its own memory management, interrupts, etc. Then, when it's done, it "reschedules" the host OS, allowing it to continue from where it left off. coLinux uses this to run a modified Linux kernel parallel to the host OS.
Unlike more common virtualization techniques, there are no barriers between coLinux and the bare metal hardware at all. However, hardware and the host OS tend to get confused if the coLinux guest touches anything without restoring it before returning to the host OS.
Not really. Operating Systems are a foundation, and your program runs on top of them. The OS handles memory access, disk writing operations, communications, etc. when your application makes requests, and asking the OS to move out of the way would mean that your program would have to do the OS's job instead.
Not as such, no.
What you want is basically an application that becomes an OS; a severely stripped down Linux kernel coupled with some highly customized and minimized tools might be the way to go for this.
if you were devious, and wanted to avoid alot of the operating system housekeeping you could probably hook yourself into a driver routine. Thinking out aloud, verging on hacking. google how to write root kits.
Yeah dude, you can totally do that, you can also write a program to tell my bank to give you all my money and send you a hot Russian.
I want to know which threads processes device interrupts. What happens when there is a interrupt when a user mode thread is running? Also do other user threads get a chance to run when the system is processing an interrupt?
Kindly suggest me some reference material describing how interrupts are handled by windows.
Device interrupts themselves are (usually) processed by whatever thread had the CPU that took the interrupt, but in a ring 0 and at a different protection level. This limits some of the actions an interrupt handler can take, because most of the time the current thread will not be related to the thread that is waiting for the event to happen that the interrupt is indicating.
The kernel itself is closed source, and only documented through its internal API. That API is exposed to device driver authors, and described in the driver development kits.
Some resources to get you started:
Any edition of Microsoft Windows Internals by Solomon and Russinovich. The current seems to be the 4th edition, but even an old edition will help.
The Windows DDK, now renamed the WDK. Its documentation is available online too. Be sure to read the Kernel Mode Design Guide...
Sysinternals has tools and articles to probe at and explain the kernel's behavior. This used to be an independent site until Microsoft got tired of Mark Russinovich seeming to know more about how the kernel worked than they did. ;-)
Note that source code to many of the common device drivers are included in the DDK in the samples. Although the production versions are almost certainly different, reading the sample drivers can answer some questions even if you don't want to implement a driver yourself.
Like any other operating system, Windows processes interrupts in Kernel mode, with an elevated Interrupt Priority Level (I think they call them IRPL's, but I don't know what the "R" stands for). Any user thread or lower-level Kernel thread running on the same machine will be interrupted while the interrupt request is processed, and will be resumed when the ineterrupt processing is complete.
In order to learn more about device interrupts on Windows you need to study device driver development. This is a niche topic, I don't think you can find many useful resources in the Web and you may have to look for a book or a training course.
Anyway, Windows handle interrupts with Interrupt Request Levels (IRQLs) and Deferred procedure calls. An interrupt is handled in Kernel mode, which runs in higher priority than user mode. A proper interrupt handler needs to react very quickly. It only performs the absolutely necessary operations and registers a Deferred Procedure Call to run in the future. This will happen, when the system is in a Interrupt Request Level.