I am aware that I certainly can't use msleep or usleep or any such function for introducing delays in a kernel ISR routine.
I have a kernel driver which have certain ISRs defined inside it. In one of the ISR block I have to insert a certain delay of order of millisecs. Lets say:
{
//A
//here I need sleep
//B
}
can I use something like:
{
//A
for(i=0;i<1000;i++);
//B
}
Lets say my processor is executing at 1Gbps, will the above for loop give me a delay of 1000 usecs, i.e. 1ms?
You must not sleep inside an interrupt handler.
Furthermore, you should wait for a long time inside an interrupt handler; this would block all proccesses and all other interrupts on the same CPU.
If you driver needs to do two things at different times, it should use a second interrupt or a timer to do the second thing.
I would be interested to hear about the reasons for having an intentional delay in an ISR. Generally speaking, it's a no-no. If you think you need one, then most probably it means that you need to rethink your code design.
As for introducing microscopic delays, one thing that I have used is cpu_relax(). This function is also used in the kernel to implement the above mentioned udelay() and ndelay() for some CPU architectures. I would advise you to take a look and see where and how this function is used in the Linux kernel. That might give you some ideas for your specific situation.
Functions udelay and ndelay implements busy-waiting delays, so you may use them in ISR. As suggested by Tsyvarev.
Related
I want to run a periodic "housekeeping" event, triggered regularly by a timer interrupt. The interrupt fires frequently (kHz+), while the function may take a long time to finish, so I can't simply have it executed in line.
In the past, I've done this on an ATMEGA, where an ISR can simply permit other interrupts to fire (including itself again) with sei(). By wrapping the event in a "still executing" flag, it won't pile up on the stack and cause a... you know:
if (!inFunction) { inFunction = true; doFunction(); inFunction = false; }
I don't think this can be done -- at least as easily -- on the XMEGA, due to the PMIC interrupt controller. It appears the interrupt flags can only be reset by executing RETI.
So, I was thinking, it would be convenient if I could convince GCC to produce a tail call out of an interrupt. That would immediately execute the event, while clearing interrupts.
This would be easy enough to do in assembler, just push the address and IRET. (Well, some stack-mangling because ISR, but, yeah.) But I'm guessing it'll be a hack in GCC, possibly a custom ASM wrapper around a "naked" function?
Alternately, I would love to simply set a low priority software interrupt, but I don't see an intentional way to do this.
I could use software to trigger an interrupt from an otherwise unused peripheral. That's fine as a special case, but then, if I ever need to use that device, I have to find another. It's bad for code reuse, too.
Really, this is an X-Y problem and I know it. I think I want to do X, but really I need method Y that I just don't know about.
One better method is to set a flag, then let main() deal with it when it gets around to it. Unfortunately, I have blocking functions in main() (handling user input via serial), so that would take work, and be a mess.
The only "proper" method I know of offhand, is to do a full task switch -- but damned if I'm going to effectively implement an RTOS, or pull one in, just for this. There's got to be a better way.
Have I actually covered all the possibilities, and painted myself into a corner? Do I have to compromise and choose one of these? Am I missing anything better?
There are more possibilities to solve this.
1. Enable your timer interrupt as low priority. In this way the medium and high priority interrupts will be able to interrupt this low priority interrupt, and run unaffected.
This is similar to using sei(); in your interrupt handler in older processors (without PMIC).
2.a Set a flag (variable) in the interrupt. Poll the flag in the main loop. If the flag is set, clear it and do your stuff.
2.b Set up the timer but don't enable its interrupt. Poll the OVF interrupt flag of your timer in the main loop. If the flag is set, clear it and do your stuff.
These are timed less accurately according to what else the main loop does, so depends on your expectations for accuracy. Handling more tasks in the main loop without an OS: Cooperative multitasking, State machine.
I'm making an emulation driver that requires me to call schedule() in ATOMIC contexts in order to make the emulation part work. For now I have this hack that allows me to call schedule() inside ATOMIC (e.g. spinlock) context:
int p_count = current_thread_info()->preempt_count;
current_thread_info()->preempt_count = 0;
schedule();
current_thread_info()->preempt_count = p_count;
But that doesn't work inside IRQs, the system just stops afer calling schedule().
Is there any way to hack the kernel in a way to allow me to do it? I'm using Linux kernel 4.2.1 with User Mode Linux
In kernel code you can be either in interrupt context or in process context.
When you are in interrupt context, you cannot call any blocking function (e.g., schedule()) or access the current pointer. That's related to how the kernel is designed and there is no way for having such functionalities in interrupt context. See also this answer.
Depending on what is your purpose, you can find some strategy that allows you to reach your goal. To me, it sounds strange that you have to call schedule() explicitly instead of relying on the natural kernel flow.
One possible approach follows (but, again, it depends on your specific goal). Form the IRQ you can schedule the work on a work queue through schedule_work(). The work queue, in fact, by design, executes kernel code in process context. From there, you are allowed to call blocking functions and access the current process data.
I am working on some project Where I have to deal with uc ATxmega128A1 , But being a beginner to a ucontrollers I want to know what is this channel event system regarding ucs.
I have referred a link http://www.atmel.com/Images/doc8071.pdf but not getting it.
The traditional way to do things the channel system can do is to use interrupts.
In the interrupt model, the CPU runs the code starting with main(), and continues usually with some loop. When an particular event occurs, such as a button being pressed, the CPU is "interrupted". The current processing is stopped, some registers are saved, and the execution jumps to some code pointed to by an interrupt vector called an interrupt handler. This code usually has instructions to save register values, and this is added automatically by the compiler.
When the interrupting code is finished, the CPU restores the values that the registers previously had and execution jumps back to the point in the main code where it was interrupted.
But this approach takes valuable CPU cycles. And some interrupt handlers don't do very much expect trigger some peripheral to take an action. Wouldn't it be great it these kinds of interrupt handlers could be avoided and have the mC have the peripherals talk directly to each other without pausing the CPU?
This is what the event channel system does. It allows peripherals to trigger each other directly without involving the CPU. The CPU continues to execute instructions while the channel system operates in parallel. This doesn't mean you can replace all interrupt handlers, though. If complicated processing is involved, you still need a handler to act. But the channel system does allow you to avoid using very simple interrupt handlers.
The paper you reference describes this in a little more detail (but assumes a lot of knowledge on the reader's part). You have to read the actual datasheet of your mC to find the exact details.
I've recently read section 5.5.2 (Spinlocks and Atomic Context) of LDDv3 book:
Avoiding sleep while holding a lock can be more difficult; many kernel functions can sleep, and this behavior is not always well documented. Copying data to or from user space is an obvious example: the required user-space page may need to be swapped in from the disk before the copy can proceed, and that operation clearly requires a sleep. Just about any operation that must allocate memory can sleep; kmalloc can decide to give up the processor, and wait for more memory to become available unless it is explicitly told not to. Sleeps can happen in surprising places; writing code that will execute under a spinlock requires paying attention to every function that you call.
It's clear to me that spinlocks must always be held for the minimum time possible and I think that it's relatively easy to write correct spinlock-using code from scratch.
Suppose, however, that we have a big project where spinlocks are widely used.
How can we make sure that functions called from critical sections protected by spinlocks will never sleep?
Thanks in advance!
What about enabling "Sleep-inside-spinlock checking" for your kernel ? It is usually found under Kernel Debugging when you run make config. You might also try to duplicate its behavior in your code.
One thing I noticed on a lot of projects is people seem to misuse spinlocks, they get used instead of the other locking primitives that should have be used.
A linux spinlock only exists in multiprocessor builds (in single process builds the spinlock preprocessor defines are empty) spinlocks are for short duration locks on a multi processor platform.
If code fails to aquire a spinlock it just spins the processor until the lock is free. So either another process running on a different processor must free the lock or possibly it could be freed by an interrupt handler but the wait event mechanism is much better way of waiting on an interrupt.
The irqsave spinlock primitive is a tidy way of disabling/ enabling interrupts so a driver can lock out an interrupt handler but this should only be held for long enough for the process to update some variables shared with an interrupt handler, if you disable interupts you are not going to be scheduled.
If you need to lock out an interrupt handler use a spinlock with irqsave.
For general kernel locking you should be using mutex/semaphore api which will sleep on the lock if they need to.
To lock against code running in other processes use muxtex/semaphore
To lock against code running in an interrupt context use irq save/restore or spinlock_irq save/restore
To lock against code running on other processors then use spinlocks and avoid holding the lock for long.
I hope this helps
I'm supposed to write a program that will send some values to registers, then wait one second, then change the values. The thing is, I'm unable to find the instruction that will halt operations for one second.
How about setting up a timer interrupt ?
Some useful hints and code snippets in this Keil 8051 application note.
There is no such 'instruction'. There is however no doubt at least one hardware timer peripheral (the exact peripheral set depends on the exact part you are using). Get out the datasheet/user manual for the part you are using and figure out how to program the timer; you can then poll it or use interrupts. Typically you'd configure the timer to generate a periodic interrupt that then increments a counter variable.
Two things you must know about timer interrupts: Firstly, if your counter variable is greater than 8-bit, access to it will not be atomic, so outside of the interrupt context you must either temporarily disable interrupts to read it, or read it twice in succession with the same value to validate it. Secondly, the timer counter variable must be declared volatile to prevent the compiler optimising out access to it; this is true of all variables shared between interrupts and threads.
Another alternative is to use a low power 'sleep' mode if supported; you set up a timer to wake the processor after the desired period, and issue the necessary sleep instruction (this may be provided as an 'intrinsic' by your compiler, or you may be controlled by a peripheral register. This is general advice, not 8051 specific; I don't know if your part even supports a sleep mode.
Either way you need to wade through the part specific documentation. If you could tell us the exact part, you may get help with that.
A third solution is to use an 8051 specific RTOS kernel which will provide exactly the periodic delay function you are looking for, as well as multi-threading and IPC.
I would setup a timer so that it interrupts every 10ms. In that interrupt, increment a variable.
You will also need to write a function to disable interrupts and read that variable.
In your main program, you will read the timer variable and then wait until it is 10100 more than it is when you started.
Don't forget to watch out for the timer variable rolling over.