Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] racy xnshadow_harden under CONFIG_PREEMPT
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jeroen Van den Keybus wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > I'm currently not at a level to participate in your discussion. Although > I'm > > willing to supply you with stresstests, I would nevertheless like to learn > > more from task migration as this debugging session proceeds. In order to do > > so, please confirm the following statements or indicate where I went wrong. > > I hope others may learn from this as well. > > > > xn_shadow_harden(): This is called whenever a Xenomai thread performs a > > Linux (root domain) system call (notified by Adeos ?). > > xnshadow_harden() is called whenever a thread running in secondary > mode (that is, running as a regular Linux thread, handled by Linux > scheduler) is switching to primary mode (where it will run as a Xenomai > thread, handled by Xenomai scheduler). Migrations occur for some system > calls. More precisely, Xenomai skin system calls tables associates a few > flags with each system call, and some of these flags cause migration of > the caller when it issues the system call. > > Each Xenomai user-space thread has two contexts, a regular Linux > thread context, and a Xenomai thread called "shadow" thread. Both > contexts share the same stack and program counter, so that at any time, > at least one of the two contexts is seen as suspended by the scheduler > which handles it. > > Before xnshadow_harden is called, the Linux thread is running, and its > shadow is seen in suspended state with XNRELAX bit by Xenomai > scheduler. After xnshadow_harden, the Linux context is seen suspended > with INTERRUPTIBLE state by Linux scheduler, and its shadow is seen as > running by Xenomai scheduler. > > The migrating thread > > (nRT) is marked INTERRUPTIBLE and run by the Linux kernel > > wake_up_interruptible_sync() call. Is this thread actually run or does it > > merely put the thread in some Linux to-do list (I assumed the first case) ? > > Here, I am not sure, but it seems that when calling > wake_up_interruptible_sync the woken up task is put in the current CPU > runqueue, and this task (i.e. the gatekeeper), will not run until the > current thread (i.e. the thread running xnshadow_harden) marks itself as > suspended and calls schedule(). Maybe, marking the running thread as Depends on CONFIG_PREEMPT. If set, we get a preempt_schedule already here - and a switch if the prio of the woken up task is higher. BTW, an easy way to enforce the current trouble is to remove the "_sync" from wake_up_interruptible. As I understand it this _sync is just an optimisation hint for Linux to avoid needless scheduler runs. > suspended is not needed, since the gatekeeper may have a high priority, > and calling schedule() is enough. In any case, the waken up thread does > not seem to be run immediately, so this rather look like the second > case. > > Since in xnshadow_harden, the running thread marks itself as suspended > before running wake_up_interruptible_sync, the gatekeeper will run when > schedule() get called, which in turn, depend on the CONFIG_PREEMPT* > configuration. In the non-preempt case, the current thread will be > suspended and the gatekeeper will run when schedule() is explicitely > called in xnshadow_harden(). In the preempt case, schedule gets called > when the outermost spinlock is unlocked in wake_up_interruptible_sync(). > > > And how does it terminate: is only the system call migrated or is the > thread > > allowed to continue run (at a priority level equal to the Xenomai > > priority level) until it hits something of the Xenomai API (or trivially: > > explicitly go to RT using the API) ? > > I am not sure I follow you here. The usual case is that the thread will > remain in primary mode after the system call, but I think a system call > flag allow the other behaviour. So, if I understand the question > correctly, the answer is that it depends on the system call. > > > In that case, I expect the nRT thread to terminate with a schedule() > > call in the Xeno OS API code which deactivates the task so that it > > won't ever run in Linux context anymore. A top priority gatekeeper is > > in place as a software hook to catch Linux's attention right after > > that schedule(), which might otherwise schedule something else (and > > leave only interrupts for Xenomai to come back to life again). > > Here is the way I understand it. We have two threads, or rather two > "views" of the same thread, with each its state. Switching from > secondary to primary mode, i.e. xnshadow_harden and gatekeeper job, > means changing the two states at once. Since we can not do that, we need > an intermediate state. Since the intermediate state can not be the state > where the two threads are running (they share the same stack and > program counter), the intermediate state is a state where the two > threads are suspended, but another context needs running, it is the > gatekeeper. > > > I have > > the impression that I c
[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared irqs v.5
Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 23/01/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >>> Hello Jan, >>> >>> as I promised earlier today, here is the patch. >> I finally had a look at your patch (not yet a try), and it looks really >> nice and light-weight. > > > I have another version here at hand. The only difference is that > xnintr_irq_handler() handles all interrupts and destinguished the timer > interrupt via "irq == XNARCH_TIMER_IRQ" to handle it appropriately. This > way, the i-cache is, hopefully, used a bit more effectively. But it doesn't > make a big difference in other parts of code so you may start testing with > the one I posted earlier. > I see: hunting the microsecond. ;) > > Now I only have two topics on my wish list: > o Handling of edge-triggered IRQs (ISA-cards...). As I tried to explain, >> in this case we have to run the IRQ handler list as long as the full >> list completed without any handler reporting XN_ISR_ENABLE back. Then >> and only then we are safe to not stall the IRQ line. See e.g. >> serial8250_interrupt() in linux/drivers/serial/8250.c for a per-driver >> solution and [1] for some discussion on sharing IRQs (be warned, it's >> from the evil side ;) ). > > > Ok. e.g. we may introduce another flag to handle such a special case. > Something along XN_ISR_EDGETIRQ and maybe a separate > xnintr_etshirq_handler() (xnintr_attach() will set it up properly) so to > avoid interfering with another code. No big overhead I guess. > serial8250_interrupt() defines a maximum number of iterations so we should > do the same (?) to avoid brain-damaged cases. Might be useful for post-mortem analysis - most real-time system will likely already have caused more or less severe damage after an IRQ handler looped for 256 times or so. Anyway, if you are able to read some information about this later on your console, it is better than not knowing at all why your drilling machine just created an extra-deep hole. > > On our systems we already have two of those use-cases: the xeno_16550A >> handling up to 4 devices on the same IRQ on an ISA card (I don't want >> to know what worst-case latency can be caused here...) and our >> SJA-1000 CAN driver for PC/104 ISA card with 2 controllers on the same >> interrupt line. So a common solution would reduce the code size and >> potential bug sources. >> >> o Store and display (/proc) the driver name(s) registered on an IRQ line >> somewhere (ipipe?). This is just a nice-to-have. I introduced the RTDM >> API with the required argument in place, would be great if we can use >> this some day. > > > Yes, the proper /proc extension should be avalable. Actually, the "native" > skin can't be extended to support the shared interrupts only by adding a new > flag. The "problem" is the way the /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts is > implemented there (and I assume any other skin follows the same way). The > rt_registry object is created per each RT_INTR structure and, hence, per > each xnintr_t. > > I'd see the following scheme : > > either > > /proc/xenomai/interrupts lists all interrupts objects registered on the > nucleus layer (xnintr_t should have a "name" field). > > IRQN drivers > > 3 driver1 > ... > 5 driver2, driver3 > > and the skin presents per-object information as > > ll /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts > > driver1 > driver2 > driver3 > > each of those files contains the same information as now. > > To achieve this, > > 1) xnintr_t should be extended with a "name" field; > > 2) rt_intr_create() should contain a "name" argument and not use > auto-generation (as "irqN") any more. > > or > > ll /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts > > 3 > 5 > > Those are directories and e.g. > > ll /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts/5 > > driver2 > driver3 > > Those are "files" and contain the same information as now. > > This is harder to implement since the registry interface should be extended > (for each skin). Isn't just the native skin using this registry? Anyway, as the preferred way of registering IRQ handlers should be via RTDM, and RTDM does not use the registry, go for the simplest solution. /proc/xenomai/interrupts is more important in my eyes. > > >> ... > >> Jan >> >> >> PS: Still at home? > > > Yes. This week I'm going to Belgium to attend a few meeting with some > customers of my potential employer. So my next step for the nearest future > will be finally determined there :) Best wishes! Just avoid too much extra work, here is already enough to do. ;) > > > How many degrees Centigrade? I guess our current -9$B!k(BC >> here in Hannover must appear ridiculous, almost subtropical warm to you. >> ;) > > > Hey, I'm not from Syberia :o) This is a kind of common delusion I guess as > the whole former USSR is assotiated with cold winters, bears, eak.. KGB etc. > :o) "Former"? Did I missed something? :) > > from wikipedia.com (about Belarus) : >
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] racy xnshadow_harden under CONFIG_PREEMPT
Jeroen Van den Keybus wrote: > Hello, > > > I'm currently not at a level to participate in your discussion. Although I'm > willing to supply you with stresstests, I would nevertheless like to learn > more from task migration as this debugging session proceeds. In order to do > so, please confirm the following statements or indicate where I went wrong. > I hope others may learn from this as well. > > xn_shadow_harden(): This is called whenever a Xenomai thread performs a > Linux (root domain) system call (notified by Adeos ?). xnshadow_harden() is called whenever a thread running in secondary mode (that is, running as a regular Linux thread, handled by Linux scheduler) is switching to primary mode (where it will run as a Xenomai thread, handled by Xenomai scheduler). Migrations occur for some system calls. More precisely, Xenomai skin system calls tables associates a few flags with each system call, and some of these flags cause migration of the caller when it issues the system call. Each Xenomai user-space thread has two contexts, a regular Linux thread context, and a Xenomai thread called "shadow" thread. Both contexts share the same stack and program counter, so that at any time, at least one of the two contexts is seen as suspended by the scheduler which handles it. Before xnshadow_harden is called, the Linux thread is running, and its shadow is seen in suspended state with XNRELAX bit by Xenomai scheduler. After xnshadow_harden, the Linux context is seen suspended with INTERRUPTIBLE state by Linux scheduler, and its shadow is seen as running by Xenomai scheduler. The migrating thread > (nRT) is marked INTERRUPTIBLE and run by the Linux kernel > wake_up_interruptible_sync() call. Is this thread actually run or does it > merely put the thread in some Linux to-do list (I assumed the first case) ? Here, I am not sure, but it seems that when calling wake_up_interruptible_sync the woken up task is put in the current CPU runqueue, and this task (i.e. the gatekeeper), will not run until the current thread (i.e. the thread running xnshadow_harden) marks itself as suspended and calls schedule(). Maybe, marking the running thread as suspended is not needed, since the gatekeeper may have a high priority, and calling schedule() is enough. In any case, the waken up thread does not seem to be run immediately, so this rather look like the second case. Since in xnshadow_harden, the running thread marks itself as suspended before running wake_up_interruptible_sync, the gatekeeper will run when schedule() get called, which in turn, depend on the CONFIG_PREEMPT* configuration. In the non-preempt case, the current thread will be suspended and the gatekeeper will run when schedule() is explicitely called in xnshadow_harden(). In the preempt case, schedule gets called when the outermost spinlock is unlocked in wake_up_interruptible_sync(). > And how does it terminate: is only the system call migrated or is the thread > allowed to continue run (at a priority level equal to the Xenomai > priority level) until it hits something of the Xenomai API (or trivially: > explicitly go to RT using the API) ? I am not sure I follow you here. The usual case is that the thread will remain in primary mode after the system call, but I think a system call flag allow the other behaviour. So, if I understand the question correctly, the answer is that it depends on the system call. > In that case, I expect the nRT thread to terminate with a schedule() > call in the Xeno OS API code which deactivates the task so that it > won't ever run in Linux context anymore. A top priority gatekeeper is > in place as a software hook to catch Linux's attention right after > that schedule(), which might otherwise schedule something else (and > leave only interrupts for Xenomai to come back to life again). Here is the way I understand it. We have two threads, or rather two "views" of the same thread, with each its state. Switching from secondary to primary mode, i.e. xnshadow_harden and gatekeeper job, means changing the two states at once. Since we can not do that, we need an intermediate state. Since the intermediate state can not be the state where the two threads are running (they share the same stack and program counter), the intermediate state is a state where the two threads are suspended, but another context needs running, it is the gatekeeper. > I have > the impression that I cannot see this gatekeeper, nor the (n)RT > threads using the ps command ? The gatekeeper and Xenomai user-space threads are regular Linux contexts, you can seen them using the ps command. > > Is it correct to state that the current preemption issue is due to the > gatekeeper being invoked too soon ? Could someone knowing more about the > migration technology explain what exactly goes wrong ? Jan seems to have found such an issue here. I am not sure I understood what he wrote. But if the issue is due to CONFIG_PREEMPT, it explains
Re: [Xenomai-core] Unresolved symbols tickGet/wind_current_context_errno using libvxworks.a
Linking my vxworks application library (about 180 C++ files) against xenomai 2.1 gives me now the following errors... Is this the result that tickGet is defined as xnticks_t tickGet(void) in xenomai but as int tickGet(void) under vxWorks? Hmm, that should not matter since the symbol would be the same (only C++ which mangles names would have a different signature). More likely the library containing the symbols is mentioned before the library needing the symbols. Look for that or send along the actual call to the linker... hth - Tom -- Thomas Lockhart Supervisor, Realtime Software Group Interferometry and Large Optical Systems Caltech/JPL
[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared irqs v.5
On 23/01/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> Hello Jan,>> as I promised earlier today, here is the patch.I finally had a look at your patch (not yet a try), and it looks reallynice and light-weight. I have another version here at hand. The only difference is that xnintr_irq_handler() handles all interrupts and destinguished the timer interrupt via "irq == XNARCH_TIMER_IRQ" to handle it appropriately. This way, the i-cache is, hopefully, used a bit more effectively. But it doesn't make a big difference in other parts of code so you may start testing with the one I posted earlier. Now I only have two topics on my wish list: o Handling of edge-triggered IRQs (ISA-cards...). As I tried to explain, in this case we have to run the IRQ handler list as long as the full list completed without any handler reporting XN_ISR_ENABLE back. Then and only then we are safe to not stall the IRQ line. See e.g. serial8250_interrupt() in linux/drivers/serial/8250.c for a per-driver solution and [1] for some discussion on sharing IRQs (be warned, it's from the evil side ;) ). Ok. e.g. we may introduce another flag to handle such a special case. Something along XN_ISR_EDGETIRQ and maybe a separate xnintr_etshirq_handler() (xnintr_attach() will set it up properly) so to avoid interfering with another code. No big overhead I guess. serial8250_interrupt() defines a maximum number of iterations so we should do the same (?) to avoid brain-damaged cases. On our systems we already have two of those use-cases: the xeno_16550A handling up to 4 devices on the same IRQ on an ISA card (I don't want to know what worst-case latency can be caused here...) and our SJA-1000 CAN driver for PC/104 ISA card with 2 controllers on the same interrupt line. So a common solution would reduce the code size and potential bug sources.o Store and display (/proc) the driver name(s) registered on an IRQ line somewhere (ipipe?). This is just a nice-to-have. I introduced the RTDM API with the required argument in place, would be great if we can use this some day. Yes, the proper /proc extension should be avalable. Actually, the "native" skin can't be extended to support the shared interrupts only by adding a new flag. The "problem" is the way the /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts is implemented there (and I assume any other skin follows the same way). The rt_registry object is created per each RT_INTR structure and, hence, per each xnintr_t. I'd see the following scheme : either /proc/xenomai/interrupts lists all interrupts objects registered on the nucleus layer (xnintr_t should have a "name" field). IRQN drivers 3 driver1 ... 5 driver2, driver3 and the skin presents per-object information as ll /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts driver1 driver2 driver3 each of those files contains the same information as now. To achieve this, 1) xnintr_t should be extended with a "name" field; 2) rt_intr_create() should contain a "name" argument and not use auto-generation (as "irqN") any more. or ll /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts 3 5 Those are directories and e.g. ll /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts/5 driver2 driver3 Those are "files" and contain the same information as now. This is harder to implement since the registry interface should be extended (for each skin). > ... JanPS: Still at home? Yes. This week I'm going to Belgium to attend a few meeting with some customers of my potential employer. So my next step for the nearest future will be finally determined there :) How many degrees Centigrade? I guess our current -9°Chere in Hannover must appear ridiculous, almost subtropical warm to you. ;) Hey, I'm not from Syberia :o) This is a kind of common delusion I guess as the whole former USSR is assotiated with cold winters, bears, eak.. KGB etc. :o) from wikipedia.com (about Belarus) : "The climate ranges from harsh winters (average January temperatures are in the range −8 °C to −2 °C) to cool and moist summers (average temperature 15 °C to 20 °C)." Actually, last days it was very cold - even about -30C. This happens from time to time but very rare (once in a few years or so) and it's not considered as something normal here. e.g. schools were closed a few last days when the temperature was below -25. Actually, the weather is getting crazy last years and not only here :) [1] http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/apic.mspx -- Best regards,Dmitry Adamushko
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] racy xnshadow_harden under CONFIG_PREEMPT
Hello, I'm currently not at a level to participate in your discussion. Although I'm willing to supply you with stresstests, I would nevertheless like to learn more from task migration as this debugging session proceeds. In order to do so, please confirm the following statements or indicate where I went wrong. I hope others may learn from this as well. xn_shadow_harden(): This is called whenever a Xenomai thread performs a Linux (root domain) system call (notified by Adeos ?). The migrating thread (nRT) is marked INTERRUPTIBLE and run by the Linux kernel wake_up_interruptible_sync() call. Is this thread actually run or does it merely put the thread in some Linux to-do list (I assumed the first case) ? And how does it terminate: is only the system call migrated or is the thread allowed to continue run (at a priority level equal to the Xenomai priority level) until it hits something of the Xenomai API (or trivially: explicitly go to RT using the API) ? In that case, I expect the nRT thread to terminate with a schedule() call in the Xeno OS API code which deactivates the task so that it won't ever run in Linux context anymore. A top priority gatekeeper is in place as a software hook to catch Linux's attention right after that schedule(), which might otherwise schedule something else (and leave only interrupts for Xenomai to come back to life again). I have the impression that I cannot see this gatekeeper, nor the (n)RT threads using the ps command ? Is it correct to state that the current preemption issue is due to the gatekeeper being invoked too soon ? Could someone knowing more about the migration technology explain what exactly goes wrong ? Thanks, Jeroen.
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] racy xnshadow_harden under CONFIG_PREEMPT
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jeroen Van den Keybus wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > I'm currently not at a level to participate in your discussion. Although > I'm > > willing to supply you with stresstests, I would nevertheless like to learn > > more from task migration as this debugging session proceeds. In order to do > > so, please confirm the following statements or indicate where I went wrong. > > I hope others may learn from this as well. > > > > xn_shadow_harden(): This is called whenever a Xenomai thread performs a > > Linux (root domain) system call (notified by Adeos ?). > > xnshadow_harden() is called whenever a thread running in secondary > mode (that is, running as a regular Linux thread, handled by Linux > scheduler) is switching to primary mode (where it will run as a Xenomai > thread, handled by Xenomai scheduler). Migrations occur for some system > calls. More precisely, Xenomai skin system calls tables associates a few > flags with each system call, and some of these flags cause migration of > the caller when it issues the system call. > > Each Xenomai user-space thread has two contexts, a regular Linux > thread context, and a Xenomai thread called "shadow" thread. Both > contexts share the same stack and program counter, so that at any time, > at least one of the two contexts is seen as suspended by the scheduler > which handles it. > > Before xnshadow_harden is called, the Linux thread is running, and its > shadow is seen in suspended state with XNRELAX bit by Xenomai > scheduler. After xnshadow_harden, the Linux context is seen suspended > with INTERRUPTIBLE state by Linux scheduler, and its shadow is seen as > running by Xenomai scheduler. > > The migrating thread > > (nRT) is marked INTERRUPTIBLE and run by the Linux kernel > > wake_up_interruptible_sync() call. Is this thread actually run or does it > > merely put the thread in some Linux to-do list (I assumed the first case) ? > > Here, I am not sure, but it seems that when calling > wake_up_interruptible_sync the woken up task is put in the current CPU > runqueue, and this task (i.e. the gatekeeper), will not run until the > current thread (i.e. the thread running xnshadow_harden) marks itself as > suspended and calls schedule(). Maybe, marking the running thread as Depends on CONFIG_PREEMPT. If set, we get a preempt_schedule already here - and a switch if the prio of the woken up task is higher. BTW, an easy way to enforce the current trouble is to remove the "_sync" from wake_up_interruptible. As I understand it this _sync is just an optimisation hint for Linux to avoid needless scheduler runs. > suspended is not needed, since the gatekeeper may have a high priority, > and calling schedule() is enough. In any case, the waken up thread does > not seem to be run immediately, so this rather look like the second > case. > > Since in xnshadow_harden, the running thread marks itself as suspended > before running wake_up_interruptible_sync, the gatekeeper will run when > schedule() get called, which in turn, depend on the CONFIG_PREEMPT* > configuration. In the non-preempt case, the current thread will be > suspended and the gatekeeper will run when schedule() is explicitely > called in xnshadow_harden(). In the preempt case, schedule gets called > when the outermost spinlock is unlocked in wake_up_interruptible_sync(). > > > And how does it terminate: is only the system call migrated or is the > thread > > allowed to continue run (at a priority level equal to the Xenomai > > priority level) until it hits something of the Xenomai API (or trivially: > > explicitly go to RT using the API) ? > > I am not sure I follow you here. The usual case is that the thread will > remain in primary mode after the system call, but I think a system call > flag allow the other behaviour. So, if I understand the question > correctly, the answer is that it depends on the system call. > > > In that case, I expect the nRT thread to terminate with a schedule() > > call in the Xeno OS API code which deactivates the task so that it > > won't ever run in Linux context anymore. A top priority gatekeeper is > > in place as a software hook to catch Linux's attention right after > > that schedule(), which might otherwise schedule something else (and > > leave only interrupts for Xenomai to come back to life again). > > Here is the way I understand it. We have two threads, or rather two > "views" of the same thread, with each its state. Switching from > secondary to primary mode, i.e. xnshadow_harden and gatekeeper job, > means changing the two states at once. Since we can not do that, we need > an intermediate state. Since the intermediate state can not be the state > where the two threads are running (they share the same stack and > program counter), the intermediate state is a state where the two > threads are suspended, but another context needs running, it is the > gatekeeper. > > > I have > > the impression that I c
[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared irqs v.5
Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 23/01/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >>> Hello Jan, >>> >>> as I promised earlier today, here is the patch. >> I finally had a look at your patch (not yet a try), and it looks really >> nice and light-weight. > > > I have another version here at hand. The only difference is that > xnintr_irq_handler() handles all interrupts and destinguished the timer > interrupt via "irq == XNARCH_TIMER_IRQ" to handle it appropriately. This > way, the i-cache is, hopefully, used a bit more effectively. But it doesn't > make a big difference in other parts of code so you may start testing with > the one I posted earlier. > I see: hunting the microsecond. ;) > > Now I only have two topics on my wish list: > o Handling of edge-triggered IRQs (ISA-cards...). As I tried to explain, >> in this case we have to run the IRQ handler list as long as the full >> list completed without any handler reporting XN_ISR_ENABLE back. Then >> and only then we are safe to not stall the IRQ line. See e.g. >> serial8250_interrupt() in linux/drivers/serial/8250.c for a per-driver >> solution and [1] for some discussion on sharing IRQs (be warned, it's >> from the evil side ;) ). > > > Ok. e.g. we may introduce another flag to handle such a special case. > Something along XN_ISR_EDGETIRQ and maybe a separate > xnintr_etshirq_handler() (xnintr_attach() will set it up properly) so to > avoid interfering with another code. No big overhead I guess. > serial8250_interrupt() defines a maximum number of iterations so we should > do the same (?) to avoid brain-damaged cases. Might be useful for post-mortem analysis - most real-time system will likely already have caused more or less severe damage after an IRQ handler looped for 256 times or so. Anyway, if you are able to read some information about this later on your console, it is better than not knowing at all why your drilling machine just created an extra-deep hole. > > On our systems we already have two of those use-cases: the xeno_16550A >> handling up to 4 devices on the same IRQ on an ISA card (I don't want >> to know what worst-case latency can be caused here...) and our >> SJA-1000 CAN driver for PC/104 ISA card with 2 controllers on the same >> interrupt line. So a common solution would reduce the code size and >> potential bug sources. >> >> o Store and display (/proc) the driver name(s) registered on an IRQ line >> somewhere (ipipe?). This is just a nice-to-have. I introduced the RTDM >> API with the required argument in place, would be great if we can use >> this some day. > > > Yes, the proper /proc extension should be avalable. Actually, the "native" > skin can't be extended to support the shared interrupts only by adding a new > flag. The "problem" is the way the /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts is > implemented there (and I assume any other skin follows the same way). The > rt_registry object is created per each RT_INTR structure and, hence, per > each xnintr_t. > > I'd see the following scheme : > > either > > /proc/xenomai/interrupts lists all interrupts objects registered on the > nucleus layer (xnintr_t should have a "name" field). > > IRQN drivers > > 3 driver1 > ... > 5 driver2, driver3 > > and the skin presents per-object information as > > ll /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts > > driver1 > driver2 > driver3 > > each of those files contains the same information as now. > > To achieve this, > > 1) xnintr_t should be extended with a "name" field; > > 2) rt_intr_create() should contain a "name" argument and not use > auto-generation (as "irqN") any more. > > or > > ll /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts > > 3 > 5 > > Those are directories and e.g. > > ll /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts/5 > > driver2 > driver3 > > Those are "files" and contain the same information as now. > > This is harder to implement since the registry interface should be extended > (for each skin). Isn't just the native skin using this registry? Anyway, as the preferred way of registering IRQ handlers should be via RTDM, and RTDM does not use the registry, go for the simplest solution. /proc/xenomai/interrupts is more important in my eyes. > > >> ... > >> Jan >> >> >> PS: Still at home? > > > Yes. This week I'm going to Belgium to attend a few meeting with some > customers of my potential employer. So my next step for the nearest future > will be finally determined there :) Best wishes! Just avoid too much extra work, here is already enough to do. ;) > > > How many degrees Centigrade? I guess our current -9$B!k(BC >> here in Hannover must appear ridiculous, almost subtropical warm to you. >> ;) > > > Hey, I'm not from Syberia :o) This is a kind of common delusion I guess as > the whole former USSR is assotiated with cold winters, bears, eak.. KGB etc. > :o) "Former"? Did I missed something? :) > > from wikipedia.com (about Belarus) : >
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] racy xnshadow_harden under CONFIG_PREEMPT
Jeroen Van den Keybus wrote: > Hello, > > > I'm currently not at a level to participate in your discussion. Although I'm > willing to supply you with stresstests, I would nevertheless like to learn > more from task migration as this debugging session proceeds. In order to do > so, please confirm the following statements or indicate where I went wrong. > I hope others may learn from this as well. > > xn_shadow_harden(): This is called whenever a Xenomai thread performs a > Linux (root domain) system call (notified by Adeos ?). xnshadow_harden() is called whenever a thread running in secondary mode (that is, running as a regular Linux thread, handled by Linux scheduler) is switching to primary mode (where it will run as a Xenomai thread, handled by Xenomai scheduler). Migrations occur for some system calls. More precisely, Xenomai skin system calls tables associates a few flags with each system call, and some of these flags cause migration of the caller when it issues the system call. Each Xenomai user-space thread has two contexts, a regular Linux thread context, and a Xenomai thread called "shadow" thread. Both contexts share the same stack and program counter, so that at any time, at least one of the two contexts is seen as suspended by the scheduler which handles it. Before xnshadow_harden is called, the Linux thread is running, and its shadow is seen in suspended state with XNRELAX bit by Xenomai scheduler. After xnshadow_harden, the Linux context is seen suspended with INTERRUPTIBLE state by Linux scheduler, and its shadow is seen as running by Xenomai scheduler. The migrating thread > (nRT) is marked INTERRUPTIBLE and run by the Linux kernel > wake_up_interruptible_sync() call. Is this thread actually run or does it > merely put the thread in some Linux to-do list (I assumed the first case) ? Here, I am not sure, but it seems that when calling wake_up_interruptible_sync the woken up task is put in the current CPU runqueue, and this task (i.e. the gatekeeper), will not run until the current thread (i.e. the thread running xnshadow_harden) marks itself as suspended and calls schedule(). Maybe, marking the running thread as suspended is not needed, since the gatekeeper may have a high priority, and calling schedule() is enough. In any case, the waken up thread does not seem to be run immediately, so this rather look like the second case. Since in xnshadow_harden, the running thread marks itself as suspended before running wake_up_interruptible_sync, the gatekeeper will run when schedule() get called, which in turn, depend on the CONFIG_PREEMPT* configuration. In the non-preempt case, the current thread will be suspended and the gatekeeper will run when schedule() is explicitely called in xnshadow_harden(). In the preempt case, schedule gets called when the outermost spinlock is unlocked in wake_up_interruptible_sync(). > And how does it terminate: is only the system call migrated or is the thread > allowed to continue run (at a priority level equal to the Xenomai > priority level) until it hits something of the Xenomai API (or trivially: > explicitly go to RT using the API) ? I am not sure I follow you here. The usual case is that the thread will remain in primary mode after the system call, but I think a system call flag allow the other behaviour. So, if I understand the question correctly, the answer is that it depends on the system call. > In that case, I expect the nRT thread to terminate with a schedule() > call in the Xeno OS API code which deactivates the task so that it > won't ever run in Linux context anymore. A top priority gatekeeper is > in place as a software hook to catch Linux's attention right after > that schedule(), which might otherwise schedule something else (and > leave only interrupts for Xenomai to come back to life again). Here is the way I understand it. We have two threads, or rather two "views" of the same thread, with each its state. Switching from secondary to primary mode, i.e. xnshadow_harden and gatekeeper job, means changing the two states at once. Since we can not do that, we need an intermediate state. Since the intermediate state can not be the state where the two threads are running (they share the same stack and program counter), the intermediate state is a state where the two threads are suspended, but another context needs running, it is the gatekeeper. > I have > the impression that I cannot see this gatekeeper, nor the (n)RT > threads using the ps command ? The gatekeeper and Xenomai user-space threads are regular Linux contexts, you can seen them using the ps command. > > Is it correct to state that the current preemption issue is due to the > gatekeeper being invoked too soon ? Could someone knowing more about the > migration technology explain what exactly goes wrong ? Jan seems to have found such an issue here. I am not sure I understood what he wrote. But if the issue is due to CONFIG_PREEMPT, it explains
Re: [Xenomai-core] Unresolved symbols tickGet/wind_current_context_errno using libvxworks.a
Linking my vxworks application library (about 180 C++ files) against xenomai 2.1 gives me now the following errors... Is this the result that tickGet is defined as xnticks_t tickGet(void) in xenomai but as int tickGet(void) under vxWorks? Hmm, that should not matter since the symbol would be the same (only C++ which mangles names would have a different signature). More likely the library containing the symbols is mentioned before the library needing the symbols. Look for that or send along the actual call to the linker... hth - Tom -- Thomas Lockhart Supervisor, Realtime Software Group Interferometry and Large Optical Systems Caltech/JPL ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared irqs v.5
On 23/01/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> Hello Jan,>> as I promised earlier today, here is the patch.I finally had a look at your patch (not yet a try), and it looks reallynice and light-weight. I have another version here at hand. The only difference is that xnintr_irq_handler() handles all interrupts and destinguished the timer interrupt via "irq == XNARCH_TIMER_IRQ" to handle it appropriately. This way, the i-cache is, hopefully, used a bit more effectively. But it doesn't make a big difference in other parts of code so you may start testing with the one I posted earlier. Now I only have two topics on my wish list: o Handling of edge-triggered IRQs (ISA-cards...). As I tried to explain, in this case we have to run the IRQ handler list as long as the full list completed without any handler reporting XN_ISR_ENABLE back. Then and only then we are safe to not stall the IRQ line. See e.g. serial8250_interrupt() in linux/drivers/serial/8250.c for a per-driver solution and [1] for some discussion on sharing IRQs (be warned, it's from the evil side ;) ). Ok. e.g. we may introduce another flag to handle such a special case. Something along XN_ISR_EDGETIRQ and maybe a separate xnintr_etshirq_handler() (xnintr_attach() will set it up properly) so to avoid interfering with another code. No big overhead I guess. serial8250_interrupt() defines a maximum number of iterations so we should do the same (?) to avoid brain-damaged cases. On our systems we already have two of those use-cases: the xeno_16550A handling up to 4 devices on the same IRQ on an ISA card (I don't want to know what worst-case latency can be caused here...) and our SJA-1000 CAN driver for PC/104 ISA card with 2 controllers on the same interrupt line. So a common solution would reduce the code size and potential bug sources.o Store and display (/proc) the driver name(s) registered on an IRQ line somewhere (ipipe?). This is just a nice-to-have. I introduced the RTDM API with the required argument in place, would be great if we can use this some day. Yes, the proper /proc extension should be avalable. Actually, the "native" skin can't be extended to support the shared interrupts only by adding a new flag. The "problem" is the way the /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts is implemented there (and I assume any other skin follows the same way). The rt_registry object is created per each RT_INTR structure and, hence, per each xnintr_t. I'd see the following scheme : either /proc/xenomai/interrupts lists all interrupts objects registered on the nucleus layer (xnintr_t should have a "name" field). IRQN drivers 3 driver1 ... 5 driver2, driver3 and the skin presents per-object information as ll /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts driver1 driver2 driver3 each of those files contains the same information as now. To achieve this, 1) xnintr_t should be extended with a "name" field; 2) rt_intr_create() should contain a "name" argument and not use auto-generation (as "irqN") any more. or ll /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts 3 5 Those are directories and e.g. ll /proc/xenomai/registry/interrupts/5 driver2 driver3 Those are "files" and contain the same information as now. This is harder to implement since the registry interface should be extended (for each skin). > ... JanPS: Still at home? Yes. This week I'm going to Belgium to attend a few meeting with some customers of my potential employer. So my next step for the nearest future will be finally determined there :) How many degrees Centigrade? I guess our current -9°Chere in Hannover must appear ridiculous, almost subtropical warm to you. ;) Hey, I'm not from Syberia :o) This is a kind of common delusion I guess as the whole former USSR is assotiated with cold winters, bears, eak.. KGB etc. :o) from wikipedia.com (about Belarus) : "The climate ranges from harsh winters (average January temperatures are in the range −8 °C to −2 °C) to cool and moist summers (average temperature 15 °C to 20 °C)." Actually, last days it was very cold - even about -30C. This happens from time to time but very rare (once in a few years or so) and it's not considered as something normal here. e.g. schools were closed a few last days when the temperature was below -25. Actually, the weather is getting crazy last years and not only here :) [1] http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/apic.mspx -- Best regards,Dmitry Adamushko ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] racy xnshadow_harden under CONFIG_PREEMPT
Hello, I'm currently not at a level to participate in your discussion. Although I'm willing to supply you with stresstests, I would nevertheless like to learn more from task migration as this debugging session proceeds. In order to do so, please confirm the following statements or indicate where I went wrong. I hope others may learn from this as well. xn_shadow_harden(): This is called whenever a Xenomai thread performs a Linux (root domain) system call (notified by Adeos ?). The migrating thread (nRT) is marked INTERRUPTIBLE and run by the Linux kernel wake_up_interruptible_sync() call. Is this thread actually run or does it merely put the thread in some Linux to-do list (I assumed the first case) ? And how does it terminate: is only the system call migrated or is the thread allowed to continue run (at a priority level equal to the Xenomai priority level) until it hits something of the Xenomai API (or trivially: explicitly go to RT using the API) ? In that case, I expect the nRT thread to terminate with a schedule() call in the Xeno OS API code which deactivates the task so that it won't ever run in Linux context anymore. A top priority gatekeeper is in place as a software hook to catch Linux's attention right after that schedule(), which might otherwise schedule something else (and leave only interrupts for Xenomai to come back to life again). I have the impression that I cannot see this gatekeeper, nor the (n)RT threads using the ps command ? Is it correct to state that the current preemption issue is due to the gatekeeper being invoked too soon ? Could someone knowing more about the migration technology explain what exactly goes wrong ? Thanks, Jeroen. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
[Xenomai-core] Ipipe xenomai and LTTng
Hi, The patch available at http://download.gna.org/adeos/patches/v2.6/i386/combo/adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-i386-1.1-00-lttng-0.5.0a.patch is a "Ipipe + LTTng" patch for the 2.6.14.5-i386 kernel release. In order to trace LTTng events in Xenomai, the patch "xenomai-2.1-rc1-lttng-05.patch.bz2" is necessary, this patch replaces the former LTT code with calls to LTTng tracing functions. This Xenomai patch is an experimental ugly try, it does not contain any filter facilities. All Xeno events are recorded. I have used the tool "genevent' (available on the LTTng site) to generate all C tracing functions. If anyone is OK to test this stuff, please use the QUICKSTART file available at http://ltt.polymtl.ca/svn/ltt/branches/poly/QUICKSTART (just replace the LTTng patches by our Ipipe + LTTng patch). This patch has been created and tested with the folloving patches and packages: -> adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-i386-1.1-00.patch -> patch-2.6.14-lttng-0.5.0a.tar.bz2 -> lttng-modules-0.4.tar.gz -> LinuxTraceToolkitViewer-0.8.0-17122005.tar.gz -> genevent-0.3.tar.gz The Ipipe patch comes from the Adeos download area and the LTTng stuff is available at the following address : http://ltt.polymtl.ca/ This patch has only been tested on a UP machine. Alexis. xenomai-2.1-rc1-lttng-05.patch.bz2 Description: BZip2 compressed data
[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared irqs v.5
Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Hello Jan, > > as I promised earlier today, here is the patch. I finally had a look at your patch (not yet a try), and it looks really nice and light-weight. Now I only have two topics on my wish list: o Handling of edge-triggered IRQs (ISA-cards...). As I tried to explain, in this case we have to run the IRQ handler list as long as the full list completed without any handler reporting XN_ISR_ENABLE back. Then and only then we are safe to not stall the IRQ line. See e.g. serial8250_interrupt() in linux/drivers/serial/8250.c for a per-driver solution and [1] for some discussion on sharing IRQs (be warned, it's from the evil side ;) ). On our systems we already have two of those use-cases: the xeno_16550A handling up to 4 devices on the same IRQ on an ISA card (I don't want to know what worst-case latency can be caused here...) and our SJA-1000 CAN driver for PC/104 ISA card with 2 controllers on the same interrupt line. So a common solution would reduce the code size and potential bug sources. o Store and display (/proc) the driver name(s) registered on an IRQ line somewhere (ipipe?). This is just a nice-to-have. I introduced the RTDM API with the required argument in place, would be great if we can use this some day. BTW, making the RTDM API shirq-aware should be as easy as adding some flags: one for sharing in general and maybe another one for marking edge-triggered IRQs. Jan PS: Still at home? How many degrees Centigrade? I guess our current -9°C here in Hannover must appear ridiculous, almost subtropical warm to you. ;) [1] http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/apic.mspx signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
