Tomas Kalibera wrote: > > Hi, > > so I've gone through the sources and made my guesses. When called from > user space, rt_intr_create results in a kernel-space handler being > installed using kernel-space rt_intr_create. The kernel handler only > counts received interrupts, exiting as soon as the count is updated. The > kernel handler is called with the interrupt disabled. On return, it uses > the I_NOAUTOENA flag from the user space call to rt_intr_create. When > the flag is set, the interrupts should stay disabled at hardware level > unless explicitly enabled by application. > > If rt_intr_wait is called from user space, it blocks until interrupt > count is >=1, then returns the interrupt count. Enabling/disabling > interrupts has thus no direct impact on rt_intr_wait returning - if some > interrupts are left to handle, rt_intr_wait will return even if the > interrupt is disabled. > > As far as my guesses based on the code are correct, rt_intr_enable and > rt_intr_disable called from user space should do end up in the > interrupts being enabled/disabled at hardware level. A simple example > however does not seem to follow this - I disable interrupts, do not > enable it, and they're still received. Why could this be happening ? Is > there a way to inquire if the interrupt is really disabled, at > application level ? >
What do $ cat /proc/interrupts and $ cat /proc/xenomai/irq say? > Tomas > > Philippe Gerum wrote: >> Tomas Kalibera wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm receiving interrupts in Xenomai user-domain using rt_intr_wait. >>> What is the semantics of rt_intr_enable and rt_intr_disable ? And >>> I_NOAUTOENA ? >>> >>> I used I_NOAUTOENA when calling rt_intr_create. I thought that after >>> returning from rt_intr_wait, the interrupt would be disabled before I >>> explicitly call rt_intr_enable. However, next call to rt_intr_wait >>> happily returned with the next interrupt, as opposed to blocking >>> indefinitely. Why ? Does rt_intr_wait automatically re-enable the >>> interrupt ? >>> >>> I tried to intentionally loose interrupts - I called rt_intr_enable >>> while handling an interrupt intentionally before making the hardware >>> generate next one. Still, the next call to rt_intr_wait did return >>> (the interrupt was not lost). How could this happen ? If interrupts >>> are logged anyway, what the rt_intr_enable/disable does ? >>> >>> I read in the API documentation >>> >>> "Interrupt receipts are logged if they cannot be delivered >>> immediately to some interrupt server task, so that a call to >>> rt_intr_wait() >>> <http://www.xenomai.org/documentation/branches/v2.4.x/html/api/group__interrupt.html#g222e6a9a681f83b13ed5b51021711f4d> >>> might return immediately if an IRQ is already pending on entry of the >>> service." >>> >>> How does Xenomai find out about this ? I mean, if a "interrupt server >>> task" is not presently blocked in rt_intr_wait for a particular >>> interrupt, how does Xenomai know that a task is actually an >>> "interrupt server task" ? When does this association happen ? Does a >>> call to rt_intr_create make Xenomai log interrupts for the domain >>> from which rt_intr_create was called ? >>> >>> >> >> This call delivers interrupts to the Xenomai domain, only. >> >> For the rest, have a look at ksrc/skins/native/syscall.c, >> __rt_intr_wait, and >> __rt_intr_handler. >> >> >>> Thanks ! >>> Tomas >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Xenomai-help mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Philippe. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
