Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
I have got a few synch-related problems while adding the code for
supporting the rt shared irqs to
the nucleus layer. But at first let's take a look at some adeos code
that, well, possibly has the
let's say the primary domain is interested in irq = TEST_IRQ.
- TEST_IRQ occurs.
- ipipe_handle_irq() The local interrupts are off on entry.
testbit(IPIPE_HANDLE_FLAG, ipd->irqs[irq].control) shows whether a
given domain is interested in handling the irq.
Then cpu-local data is mainly used, e.g. cpudata->irq_hits[irq]++
and proper changes of pending_lo/hi
- ... -> rthal_irq_release() -> ipipe_virtualize_irq(TEST_IRQ, ...
handler = NULL, ...)
- Here, __ipipe_pipe_lock + interrupts off.
o ipipe_virtualize_irq() drops the IPIPE_HANDLE_FLAG and sets up
ipd->irqs[irq].handler to NULL.
First observations, at the same time the TEST_IRQ still can be
marked as pending
(i.e. some_cpudata->irq_pending_lo/hi and irq_hits)!
- actually, ipipe_handle_irq() now (if not yet done before) may be
but noone is interested in this irq == TEST_IRQ already. But no matter,
the fact is that cpudata->irq_* of a given cpu denotes a pending
irq, let's go further.
- later on, ipipe_sync_stage() is called for a given domain and cpu.
It handles all irqs which are marked for the domain and cpu. So it's
based only on the check of
cpudata->irq_(pending_(hi,lo), hits) fields.
Let's recall that TEST_IRQ is marked here as well...
In some way (ipipe_call_root_*irq_handler() or directly
ipd->irqs[irq].handler()) the isr handler is called
and boom! it's NULL.
Have I missed something that prevents this?
Nope, good spot, that could indeed happen in SMP configs. The code is
expected to shut the given interrupt source _before_ calling
rthal_irq_release(). But, the root of the problem is that
rthal_irq_release() doesn't make sure that all _pending_ IRQs from the
given kind are synchronized before processing. We need the equivalent of
Linux's synchronize_irq() here, and I would tend to implement this in
the Adeos layer directly, in ipipe_virtualize_irq() for the NULL handler
case, since it's a matter of general consistency.
In a sense, the synch. problem I have mentioned at the beginning of this
mail reminds this scenario.
The draft patch is enclosed just to elustrate an idea.
There are 2 problems:
1) we probably don't want to hold any lock while processing the handlers
list (xnintr_intr_handler(): for all shirq->handlers).
Here we may use the approach used by linux in manage.c::free_irq() vs.
handle.c::__do_IRQ() that calls handle_IRQ_event() without the
desc->lock being locked.
The magic is in free_irq() : it removes the "action" item from the list
but then falls into busy waiting until the IRQ_INPROGRESS flag is
removed. And only then it deletes the "action" item.
At that time, the "action" item is already not on the list but still
points to the valid tail of the list so the iteration may be proceeded
even if the current item == "deleted" one.
Blah, just I guess the presupposition here is that the operation of
deletion (free_irq():: *pp = action->next) is atomic.
2) xnintr_irq_handler() gets a cookie which is == xnshared_irq_t* (see
xnintr_attach) that may already be invalid at that time or, and that's a
problem, become invalid during the execution of xnintr_irq_handler().
To prevent that, we could add a flag like IRQ_INPROGRESS but
either we have to set/remove it on the adeos layer before the control is
passed to the xnintr_irq_handler() (to be sure that cookie is not
xnfree()'d. xnintr_detach() will do busy waiting)
Synchronizing the pending IRQs in ipipe_virtualize_irq() should be done
by polling the proper irq_pending count (and _not_ the hi/lo bits which
get cleared before the handler is run). The prerequisite is to call
ipipe_virtualize_irq() for an unstalled domain, or at least forcibly
unstalling it there. I would see something along these lines, which is
already used to drain the pending IRQs before unlinking a domain from
/* or tweak the modemask directly */
for (_cpuid = 0; _cpuid < nr_cpus; _cpuid++)
while (ipd->cpudata[_cpuid].irq_hits[irq] > 0)
or we may set/remove the flag in the xnintr_irq_handler() but have to
ignore the passed "cookie" and
get it as cookie = rthal_irq_cookie(ipd,irq). Mmm, not very gracefully
Ok, it's enough for the New Year's Eve.
Happy New Year to everybody! I wish you all the best for the New Year :o)
Best wishes too!
Xenomai-core mailing list