From the kernel I can call local_irq_disable(). To my understanding it will disable the interrupts of the current CPU. And interrupts will remain disabled until I call local_irq_enable(). Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
If my understanding is correct, does it mean upon calling local_irq_disable() interrupt is also disabled for a process in the user space that is running on that same CPU?
More details:
I have a process running in the user space which I want to run without affected by interrupts and context switch. As it is not possible from the user space, I thought disabling interrupt and kernel preemption for a particular CPU from kernel will help in this case. Therefore, I wrote a simple device driver to disable kernel preemption and local interrupt by using the following code,
int i = irqs_disabled();
pr_info("before interrupt disable: %d\n", i);
pr_info("module is loaded on processor: %d\n", smp_processor_id());
id = get_cpu();
message[1] = smp_processor_id() + '0';
local_irq_disable();
printk(KERN_INFO " Current CPU id is %c\n", message[1]);
printk(KERN_INFO " local_irq_disable() called, Disable local interrupts\n");
pr_info("After interrupt disable: %d\n", irqs_disabled());
output: $dmesg
[22690.997561] before interrupt disable: 0
[22690.997564] Current CPU id is 1
[22690.997565] local_irq_disable() called, Disable local interrupts
[22690.997566] After interrupt disable: 1
I think the output confirms that local_irq_disable() does disable local interrupts.
After I disable the kernel preemption and interrupts, In the userspace I use CPU_SET() to pin my process into that particular CPU. But after doing all these I'm still not getting the desired outcome. So, it seems like disabling interrupt of a particular CPU from kernel also disable interrupts for a user space process running on that CPU is not true. I'm confused.
I was looking for an answer to the above question but could not get any suitable answer.
Duration of the CPU state with disabled interrupts should be short, because it affects the whole OS. For that reason allowing user space code to be run with disabled interrupts is considered as bad practice and is not supported by the Linux kernel.
It is responsibility of the kernel module to wrap by local_irq_disable / local_irq_enable only the kernel code. Sometimes the kernel itself could "fix" incorrect usage of these functions, but that fact shouldn't be relied upon when write a module.
I have a process running in the userspace which I want to run without affected by interrupts and context switch.
Protection from the context switch could be achieved by proper setting of scheduling policy, affinity and priority of the process. That way, the scheduler will never attempt to reschedule your process. There are several questions on Stack Overflow about making a CPU to be exclusive for a selected process.
As for interrupts, they shouldn't be disabled for a user code.
If user code accesses some hardware which should have interrupts disabled, then consider moving your code into the kernel space.
If even rare interrupts badly affect on the performance of your process or its timing, then try to reconfigure Linux kernel to be "more real time". There are also some boot-time configuration options, which could help in further reducing number of interrupts on a specific core(s). See e.g. that question: Why does using taskset to run a multi-threaded Linux program on a set of isolated cores cause all threads to run on one core?.
Note, that Linux kernel is not a base for real-time OS and never intended to be. So, if no configuration and boot settings could help you, consider to choose for your application another OS, which is real time.
Imagine that a device function holds a spinlock to control access to the device. While the lock is held, the device issues an interrupt, which causes an interrupt handler to run. The interrupt handler, before accessing the device, must also obtain the lock.
Suppose that the interrupt handler executes in the same processor as the code that took out the lock originally.
Knowing that to hold spinlock disables preemption on the relevant processor, is it possible that the code that holds the spinlock be executed on another processor (because of preemption on this processor)? (We suppose that this is a SMP machine)
Is it possible that the code that holds the spinlock be executed on another processor (because of preemption on this processor)?
No, the code just keeps waiting for the interrupt handler to return.
Just use spin_lock_irq*(), or spin_lock_bh() if you also want to protect against softirqs/tasklets.
Does the CPU disable all interrupts on local CPU before calling the interrupt handler?
Or does it only disable that particular interrupt line, which is being served?
x86 disables all local interrupts (except NMI of course) before jumping to the interrupt vector. Linux normally masks the specific interrupt and re-enables the rest of the interrupts (which aren't masked), unless a specific flags is passed to the interrupt handler registration.
Note that while this means your interrupt handler will not race with itself on the same CPU, it can and will race with itself running on other CPUs in an SMP / SMT system.
Normally (at least in x86), an interrupt disables interrupts.
When an interrupt is received, the hardware does these things:
1. Save all registers in a predetermined place.
2. Set the instruction pointer (AKA program counter) to the interrupt handler's address.
3. Set the register that controls interrupts to a value that disables all (or most) interrupts. This prevents another interrupt from interrupting this one.
An exception is NMI (non maskable interrupt) which can't be disabled.
Yes, that's fine.
I'd like to also add what I think might be relevant.
In many real-world drivers/kernel code, "bottom-half" (bh) handlers are used pretty often- tasklets, softirqs. These bh's run in interrupt context and can run in parallel with their top-half (th) handlers on SMP (esp softirq's).
Of course, recently there's a move (mainly code migrated from the PREEMPT_RT project) towards mainline, that essentially gets rid of the 'bh' mechanism- all interrupt handlers will run with all interrupts disabled. Not only that, handlers are (can be) converted to kernel threads- these are the so-called "threaded" interrupt handlers.
As of today, the choice is still left to the developer- you can use the 'traditional' th/bh style or the threaded style.
Ref and Details:
http://lwn.net/Articles/380931/
http://lwn.net/Articles/302043/
Quoting Intels own, surprisingly well-written "Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual", Volume 1, pages 6-10:
If an interrupt or exception handler is called
through an interrupt gate, the processor clears the interrupt enable (IF) flag in the EFLAGS register to prevent
subsequent interrupts from interfering with the execution of the handler. When a handler is called through a trap
gate, the state of the IF flag is not changed.
So just to be clear - yes, effectively the CPU "disables" all interrupts before calling the interrupt handler. Properly described, the processor simply triggers a flag which makes it ignore all interrupt requests. Except probably non-maskable interrupts and/or its own software exceptions (please someone correct me on this, not verified).
We want ISR to be atomic and no one should be able to preempt the ISR.
Therefore, An ISR disables the local interrupts ( i.e. the interrupt on the current processor) and once the ISR calls ret_from_intr() function ( i.e. we have finished the ISR) , interrupts are again enabled on the current processor.
If an interrupt occurs, it will now be served by the other processor ( in SMP system) and ISR related to that interrupt will start running.
In SMP system , We also need to include the proper synchronization mechanism ( spin lock) in an ISR.
I am actually reading Windows Internals 5th edition and i am enjoying, although isn't a easy book to read and understand.
I am confused about IRQLs and IDT Table.
I read that windows implement custom priorization levels with IRQL and the Plug and Play Manager maps IRQ from devices to IRQL.
Alright, so, IRQLs are used for Software and Hardware interrupts, and for exceptions is used the Exception Dispatch handler.
When one device generates an interrupt, the interrupt controller pass this information to the CPU with the IRQ.
So Windows takes this IRQ and translates to IRQL to schedule when to execute the routine (routine that IDT[IRQ_VALUE] is pointing to?
Is that what is happening?
Yes, on a very high level.
Everything starts with a kernel trap. Kernel trap handler handles interrupts, exceptions, system service calls and virtual memory pager.
When an interrupt happens (line based - using dedicated pin or message based- writing to an address) windows uses IRQL to determine the priority of the interrupt and uses this to see if the interrupt can be served or not during that time. HAL does the job of translating the IRQ to IRQL.
It then uses IRQ to get an index of the IDT to find the appropriate ISR routing to invoke. Note there can be multiple ISR associated for a given IRQ. All of them execute in order.
Each processor has its own IDT so you could potentially have multiple ISR's running at the same time.
Exception dispatch, as I mentioned before, is also handled by the kernel trap but the procedure for it is different. It usually starts by checking for any exception handlers by stack unwinding, then checking for debugger port etc.
I am reading following article by Robert Love
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6916
that says
"...Let's discuss the fact that work queues run in process context. This is in contrast to the other bottom-half mechanisms, which all run in interrupt context. Code running in interrupt context is unable to sleep, or block, because interrupt context does not have a backing process with which to reschedule. Therefore, because interrupt handlers are not associated with a process, there is nothing for the scheduler to put to sleep and, more importantly, nothing for the scheduler to wake up..."
I don't get it. AFAIK, scheduler in the kernel is O(1), that is implemented through the bitmap. So what stops the scehduler from putting interrupt context to sleep and taking next schedulable process and passing it the control?
So what stops the scehduler from putting interrupt context to sleep and taking next schedulable process and passing it the control?
The problem is that the interrupt context is not a process, and therefore cannot be put to sleep.
When an interrupt occurs, the processor saves the registers onto the stack and jumps to the start of the interrupt service routine. This means that when the interrupt handler is running, it is running in the context of the process that was executing when the interrupt occurred. The interrupt is executing on that process's stack, and when the interrupt handler completes, that process will resume executing.
If you tried to sleep or block inside an interrupt handler, you would wind up not only stopping the interrupt handler, but also the process it interrupted. This could be dangerous, as the interrupt handler has no way of knowing what the interrupted process was doing, or even if it is safe for that process to be suspended.
A simple scenario where things could go wrong would be a deadlock between the interrupt handler and the process it interrupts.
Process1 enters kernel mode.
Process1 acquires LockA.
Interrupt occurs.
ISR starts executing using Process1's stack.
ISR tries to acquire LockA.
ISR calls sleep to wait for LockA to be released.
At this point, you have a deadlock. Process1 can't resume execution until the ISR is done with its stack. But the ISR is blocked waiting for Process1 to release LockA.
I think it's a design idea.
Sure, you can design a system that you can sleep in interrupt, but except to make to the system hard to comprehend and complicated(many many situation you have to take into account), that's does not help anything. So from a design view, declare interrupt handler as can not sleep is very clear and easy to implement.
From Robert Love (a kernel hacker):
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.kernelnewbies/1791
You cannot sleep in an interrupt handler because interrupts do not have
a backing process context, and thus there is nothing to reschedule back
into. In other words, interrupt handlers are not associated with a task,
so there is nothing to "put to sleep" and (more importantly) "nothing to
wake up". They must run atomically.
This is not unlike other operating systems. In most operating systems,
interrupts are not threaded. Bottom halves often are, however.
The reason the page fault handler can sleep is that it is invoked only
by code that is running in process context. Because the kernel's own
memory is not pagable, only user-space memory accesses can result in a
page fault. Thus, only a few certain places (such as calls to
copy_{to,from}_user()) can cause a page fault within the kernel. Those
places must all be made by code that can sleep (i.e., process context,
no locks, et cetera).
Because the thread switching infrastructure is unusable at that point. When servicing an interrupt, only stuff of higher priority can execute - See the Intel Software Developer's Manual on interrupt, task and processor priority. If you did allow another thread to execute (which you imply in your question that it would be easy to do), you wouldn't be able to let it do anything - if it caused a page fault, you'd have to use services in the kernel that are unusable while the interrupt is being serviced (see below for why).
Typically, your only goal in an interrupt routine is to get the device to stop interrupting and queue something at a lower interrupt level (in unix this is typically a non-interrupt level, but for Windows, it's dispatch, apc or passive level) to do the heavy lifting where you have access to more features of the kernel/os. See - Implementing a handler.
It's a property of how O/S's have to work, not something inherent in Linux. An interrupt routine can execute at any point so the state of what you interrupted is inconsistent. If you interrupted the thread scheduling code, its state is inconsistent so you can't be sure you can "sleep" and switch threads. Even if you protect the thread switching code from being interrupted, thread switching is a very high level feature of the O/S and if you protected everything it relies on, an interrupt becomes more of a suggestion than the imperative implied by its name.
So what stops the scehduler from putting interrupt context to sleep and taking next schedulable process and passing it the control?
Scheduling happens on timer interrupts. The basic rule is that only one interrupt can be open at a time, so if you go to sleep in the "got data from device X" interrupt, the timer interrupt cannot run to schedule it out.
Interrupts also happen many times and overlap. If you put the "got data" interrupt to sleep, and then get more data, what happens? It's confusing (and fragile) enough that the catch-all rule is: no sleeping in interrupts. You will do it wrong.
Disallowing an interrupt handler to block is a design choice. When some data is on the device, the interrupt handler intercepts the current process, prepares the transfer of the data and enables the interrupt; before the handler enables the current interrupt, the device has to hang. We want keep our I/O busy and our system responsive, then we had better not block the interrupt handler.
I don't think the "unstable states" are an essential reason. Processes, no matter they are in user-mode or kernel-mode, should be aware that they may be interrupted by interrupts. If some kernel-mode data structure will be accessed by both interrupt handler and the current process, and race condition exists, then the current process should disable local interrupts, and moreover for multi-processor architectures, spinlocks should be used to during the critical sections.
I also don't think if the interrupt handler were blocked, it cannot be waken up. When we say "block", basically it means that the blocked process is waiting for some event/resource, so it links itself into some wait-queue for that event/resource. Whenever the resource is released, the releasing process is responsible for waking up the waiting process(es).
However, the really annoying thing is that the blocked process can do nothing during the blocking time; it did nothing wrong for this punishment, which is unfair. And nobody could surely predict the blocking time, so the innocent process has to wait for unclear reason and for unlimited time.
Even if you could put an ISR to sleep, you wouldn't want to do it. You want your ISRs to be as fast as possible to reduce the risk of missing subsequent interrupts.
The linux kernel has two ways to allocate interrupt stack. One is on the kernel stack of the interrupted process, the other is a dedicated interrupt stack per CPU. If the interrupt context is saved on the dedicated interrupt stack per CPU, then indeed the interrupt context is completely not associated with any process. The "current" macro will produce an invalid pointer to current running process, since the "current" macro with some architecture are computed with the stack pointer. The stack pointer in the interrupt context may point to the dedicated interrupt stack, not the kernel stack of some process.
By nature, the question is whether in interrupt handler you can get a valid "current" (address to the current process task_structure), if yes, it's possible to modify the content there accordingly to make it into "sleep" state, which can be back by scheduler later if the state get changed somehow. The answer may be hardware-dependent.
But in ARM, it's impossible since 'current' is irrelevant to process under interrupt mode. See the code below:
#linux/arch/arm/include/asm/thread_info.h
94 static inline struct thread_info *current_thread_info(void)
95 {
96 register unsigned long sp asm ("sp");
97 return (struct thread_info *)(sp & ~(THREAD_SIZE - 1));
98 }
sp in USER mode and SVC mode are the "same" ("same" here not mean they're equal, instead, user mode's sp point to user space stack, while svc mode's sp r13_svc point to the kernel stack, where the user process's task_structure was updated at previous task switch, When a system call occurs, the process enter kernel space again, when the sp (sp_svc) is still not changed, these 2 sp are associated with each other, in this sense, they're 'same'), So under SVC mode, kernel code can get the valid 'current'. But under other privileged modes, say interrupt mode, sp is 'different', point to dedicated address defined in cpu_init(). The 'current' calculated under these mode will be irrelevant to the interrupted process, accessing it will result in unexpected behaviors. That's why it's always said that system call can sleep but interrupt handler can't, system call works on process context but interrupt not.
High-level interrupt handlers mask the operations of all lower-priority interrupts, including those of the system timer interrupt. Consequently, the interrupt handler must avoid involving itself in an activity that might cause it to sleep. If the handler sleeps, then the system may hang because the timer is masked and incapable of scheduling the sleeping thread.
Does this make sense?
If a higher-level interrupt routine gets to the point where the next thing it must do has to happen after a period of time, then it needs to put a request into the timer queue, asking that another interrupt routine be run (at lower priority level) some time later.
When that interrupt routine runs, it would then raise priority level back to the level of the original interrupt routine, and continue execution. This has the same effect as a sleep.
It is just a design/implementation choices in Linux OS. The advantage of this design is simple, but it may not be good for real time OS requirements.
Other OSes have other designs/implementations.
For example, in Solaris, the interrupts could have different priorities, that allows most of devices interrupts are invoked in interrupt threads. The interrupt threads allows sleep because each of interrupt threads has separate stack in the context of the thread.
The interrupt threads design is good for real time threads which should have higher priorities than interrupts.