Keeping my question short... i am writing simulation for a RTOS. As usual the main problem comes with context switch simulation. In case of interrupts it is really becoming hard not to deviate from 'Good' coding guidelines.
Say Task A is running and user application is calculating its harmless private stuff which will run for a long time. during this task A, an interrupt X is supposed to occur. (hint: task A has nothing to do with triggering this interrupt X)... now how do i perform context switch from Task A to interrupt X handler?
My current implementation is based on a context thread that waits till some context switch is requested; an interrupt controller thread that can generate interrupts if someone request interrupt triggering; and a main thread that is running Task A. Now i use interrupt controller thread to generate a new thread for interrupt X and then request context thread to do the context switch. Context thread Suspends Task A main thread and resumes interrupt X handler thread. At the end of interrupt X handler thread, Task A main thread is resumed..
[Edit] just to clarify, i already know suspending and terminating threads from outside is really bad. That is why i asked this question. Plus please don't recommend using event etc. for controlling Task A. it is user application code and i can't control it. He can even use while(1){} if he wants...
I suspect that you can't do what you want to do in that way.
You mentioned that suspending a thread from outside is really bad. The reason is that you have no idea what the thread is doing when you suspend it. It's impossible to know whether the thread currently owns a mutex; if it does then any other thread that tries to access the same mutex is going to deadlock.
You have the problem that the runtime being used by the threads that might be suspended is the same as the one being used by the supervisor. That means there are many potential such deadlocks between the supervisor and the other threads.
In a real environment (i.e. not a simulator), the operating system kernel can suspend threads because there are checks in place to ensure that these deadlocks can't happen. I don't know the details, but it probably involves masking interrupts at certain critical points, and probably not sharing the same mutexes between user-mode code and critical parts of the kernel scheduler. (In your case that would mean your scheduler could not use any of the same OS API functions, either directly or indirectly, as are allowed to be used by the user threads, in case they involve mutexes. This of course would be virtually impossible to achieve.)
The reason I asked in a comment whether you have any control over the user code compiler is that if you controlled the compiler then you could arrange for the user code to effectively mask interrupts for the duration of each instruction and only yield to another thread at well-defined points between instructions. This is how it is done in a control system that I work on.
The other aspect is platform dependence. In Linux and other unix-like operating systems, you have signals, which are like user-mode interrupts. You could potentially use signals to emulate context switching, although you would still have the same problem with mutexes. There is absolutely no equivalent on Windows (as far as I know) precisely because of the problem already stated. The nearest thing is an asynchronous procedure call, but this will run only when the thread has put itself into an alertable wait state (which means the thread is in a deterministic state and is now safe to interrupt).
I think you are going to have to re-think the whole concept so that your supervisory thread has the sort of privileged control above the user threads that the OS has in a non-emulated environment. That will probably involve replacing the compiler or the run-time libraries, or both, with something of your own making.
Related
i have passed through this post and i noticed that in Clifford's answer he said that we shouldn't use mutex in an interrupt, i know that in an interrupt we have to avoid too much instructions and delays ext... but am not very clear about the reasons could anyone clarify me for which reason we have to avoid this?
In case that we want establish a synchronous communication between 2 interrupt driven threads what are the other mecahnism to use if using mutex is not allowed?
The original question you cite refers to code on an Atmel ATMegaAVR - a simple 8 mit microcontroller. In that context, one can assume that the mutex machanism is part of a simple RTOS.
In such a system, there is a thread context and an interrupt context. Interrupts are invoked by the hardware, while threads are scheduler by the RTOS scheduler. Now when an interrupt occurs, any thread will be immediately pre-empted; the interrupt must run to completion and can only be preempted by a higher priority interrupt (where nested interrupts are supported). All pending interrupts will run to completion before the scheduler can run.
Blocking on a mutex (or indeed any blocking kernel object) is a secheduling event. If you were to make any blocking call in an interrupt, the scheduler will never run. In prectice an RTOS would either ignore the blocking call, raise an exception, or enter a terminal error handler.
Some OS's such as SMX, Velocity or even WinCE have somewhat more complex interrupt architectures and support variety of deferred interrupt handler. Deferred interrupt handlers are run-to-completion scheduled from an interrupt but running outside of the interrupt context; the rules for blocking in such handlers may differ, but you would need to refer to the specific OS documentation. Without deferred interrupt handlers, the usual solution is to have a thread wait on a some blocking object such as a semaphore, and have the interrupt itself do little more that cause the object to unblock (such as giving a semaphore for example).
Multi-processor/core and parallel processing systems are another issue altogether, such systems are way beyond the scope of the question where the original comment was made, and beyond my experience - my comment may not apply in such a system, but there are no doubt additional complexities and considerations in any case
A mutex is typically used to ensure that a resource is used by only one user at any given time.
When a thread needs to use a resource it attempts to get the mutex first to ensure the resource is available. If the mutex is not available then the thread typically blocks to wait for the mutex to become available.
While a thread owns the mutex, it prevents other threads from obtaining the mutex and interfering with its use of the resource. Higher priority threads are often the concern here because those are the threads that may preempt the mutex owner.
The RTOS kernel assigns ownership of the mutex to a particular thread and typically only the mutex owner can release the mutex.
Now lets imagine this from an interrupt handler's point of view.
If an interrupt handler attempts to get a mutex that is not available, what should it do? The interrupt handler cannot block like the thread (the kernel is not equipped to push the context of an interrupt handler or switch to a thread from an interrupt handler).
If the interrupt handler obtains the mutex, what higher priority code is there that could interrupt the interrupt handler and attempt to use the mutex? Is the interrupt handler going to release the mutex before completing?
How does the kernel assign ownership of the mutex to an interrupt handler? An interrupt handler is not a thread. If the interrupt handler does not release the mutex then how will the kernel validate that the mutex is being released by the owner?
So maybe you have answers for all those questions. Maybe the you can guarantee that the interrupt handler runs only when the mutex is available or that the interrupt handler will not block on the mutex. Or maybe you're trying to protect the resource access from an even higher priority nested interrupt handler that also wants to use the resource. And maybe your kernel doesn't have any hangup with assigning ownership or restricting who releases the mutex. I guess if you've got all these questions answered then maybe you have a case for using a mutex within an interrupt handler.
But perhaps what you really need is a semaphore instead. One common application of a semaphore is to signal an event. Semaphores are very often used this way within interrupt handlers. The interrupt handler posts or sets the semaphore to signal that an event has occurred. The threads pend on the semaphore to wait for the event condition. (A semaphore doesn't have that ownership restriction that a mutex has.) Event signalling semaphores is one common way to establish synchronous communication between 2 interrupt driven threads.
The term "mutex" is often defined both as being the simplest form of synchronization between execution contexts, and also as being a construct that will not only check whether a resource is available, but wait for it to become available if it isn't, acquiring it as soon as it becomes available. These definitions are inconsistent, since the simplest forms of synchronization merely involve testing whether one has been granted ownership of a resource, and don't provide any in-built mechanism to wait for it if it isn't.
It is almost never proper to have code within an interrupt handler that waits for a resource to become available, unless the only things that could hold the resource would be higher-priority interrupts or hardware that will spontaneously release it. If the term "mutex" is only used to describe such constructs, then there would be very few cases where one could properly use a mutex within an interrupt handler. If, however, one uses the term "mutex" more broadly to refer to the simplest structures that will ensure that a piece of code that accesses a resource can only execute at times when no other piece of code anywhere in the universe will be accessing that resource, then the use of such constructs within interrupts is often not only proper, but required.
While there might be unusual cases where there's some problem with using a mutex in an interrupt handler, it's quite common practice and there's nothing wrong with it.
It really only makes sense on systems with more than one core. With just a single core (and no hyper-threading), the mutex would never do anything anyway. If the core is running code that acquires a mutex that interrupt code can acquire, interrupts (or the subset of them that matter) are disabled anyway. So with just one core, the mutex would never see any contention.
However, with multiple cores, it's common to use mutexes to protect structures that communicate between interrupt and non-interrupt code. So long as you know what you're doing, and you have to if you're going to write interrupt handlers, there's nothing wrong with it.
How the mutex blocks and unblocks is heavily implementation dependent. It can put the CPU to sleep and be woken by an inter-process interrupt. It can spin the CPU in some CPU-specific way.
Note that a totally unrelated concept that is often confused with this is using user-space mutexes in user-space signal handlers. That's a completely different question.
I understand that regarding the kernel-level threads, there is an interrupt caused by reaching a certain cycle count, that is signaling the kernel to perform the required context switch over to another thread depending on the scheduler.
In my understanding regarding user-level threads, in a many to one model the scheduling of the user threads is done completely in user space. The kernel just schedules the kernel thread user-level threads had been mapped to.
My problem is that I can't comprehend the bit after "the control has been transferred to a certain user-level thread". How does it cease to execute for the scheduler to get the control back to perform needed context switching and selecting of another thread for execution? I am not sure if there are any timer registers being used to cause an interrupt when it comes to user-level threads.
So once again how does the user-level scheduler get the control back?
Please enlighten me.
Funny thing (what a real coincidence) I've been formulating the answer to this in my head on my way home yesterday. For real.
The answer is that user-level thread has to give control back. Only kernel-level threads could be preempted. This control giving can happen either explicitly - by calling functions like yield() - or implicitly, by calling any other function which know how to transfer control. Those would be most likely thread-synchronization functions.
I was wondering when .Net would most probably switch from a thread to another?
I understand we can't predict when this will happen exactly, but is there any intelligence in this? For example, when a thread is executed will it try to wait for a method to returns or a loop to finish before switching?
I'm not an expert on .NET, but in general scheduling is handled by the kernel.
Either your thread's timeslice has expired (threads/processes only get a certain amount of CPU time)
Your thread has blocked for IO.
Some other obscure reason, like waiting for an IPC message, a network packet or something.
Threads can be preempted at any point along their execution path, be it in a loop or returning from a function. This in general isn't handled by the underlying VM (.NET or JVM) but is controlled by the OS.
Of course there is 'intelligence', of a sort:). The set of running threads can only change upon an interrupt, either:
An actual hardware interrupt from a peripheral device, eg. disk, NIC, KB, mouse, timer.
A software interrupt, (ie. a system call), that can change the state of thread/s. This encompasses sleep calls and calls to wait/signal on inter-thread synchro objects, as well as I/O calls that request data that is not immediately available.
If there is no interrupt, the OS cannot change the set of running threads because it is not entered. The OS does not know or care about loops, function/methods calls, (except those that make system calls as above), gotos or any other user-level flow-control mechanisms.
I read your question now, it may not be rellevant anymore, but after reading the above answers, i want to just to make sure:
Threads are managed (or as i know) by the process they belong to. There is nothing to do with the Operation System(and that's is the main reason why working with multithreads is more faster than working with multiprocess, because there are data sharing between threads and the switching between them is occuring faster than the context switch wich occure between process by the Short-Term-Scheduler).
(NOTE: There are two types of threads: USER_MODE' threads and KERNEL_MODE' threadss, and each os can have both of them or just on of them. Anyway a thread that working in a user application environment is considered as a USER_MODE' thread and managed by the process it's belong to.)
Am I Write?
Thanks!!!
I'm studying threads and I am not sure if I understand some concepts. What is the difference between preemption and yield? So far I know that preemption is a forced yield but I am not sure what it actually means.
Thanks for your help.
Preemption is when one thread stops another thread from running so that it may run.
To yield is when a thread voluntarily gives up processor time.
Have a gander at these...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_(computing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing)
The difference is how the OS is entered.
'yield' is a software interrupt AKA system call, one of the many that may result in a change in the set of running threads, (there are lots of other system calls that can do this - blocking reads, synchronization calls). yield() is called from a running thread and may result in another ready, (but not running), thread of the same priority being run instead of the calling thread - if there is one.
The exact behaviour of yield() is somewhat hardware/OS/language-dependent. Unless you are developing low-level lock-free thread comms mechanisms, and you are very good at it, it's best to just forget about yield().
Preemption is the act of interrupting one thread and dispatching another in its place. It can only occur after a hardware interrupt. When hardware interrupts, its driver is entered. The driver may decide that it can usefully make a thread ready, (eg. a thread is blocked on a read() call to the driver and the driver has accumulated a nice, big buffer of data). The driver can do this by signaling a semaphore and exiting via. the OS, (which provides an entry point for just such a purpose). This driver exit path causes a reschedule and, probably, makes the read thread running instead of some other thread that was running before the interrupt - the other thread has been preempted. Essentially and simply, preemption occurs when the OS decides to interrupt-return to a different set of threads than the one that was interrupted.
Yield: The thread calls a function in the scheduler, which potentially "parks" that thread, and starts another one. The other thread is one which called yield earlier, and now appears to return from it. Many functions can have yielding semantics, such as reading from a device.
Preempt: an external event comes into the system: some kind of interrupt (clock, network data arriving, disk I/O completing ...). Whichever thread is running at that time is suspended, and the machine is running operating system code the interrupt context. When the interrupt is serviced, and it's time to return from the interrupt, a scheduling decision can be made to keep the interrupted thread parked, and instead resume another one. That is a preemption. If/when that original thread gets to run again, the context which was saved by the interrupt will be activated and it will pick up exactly where it left off.
Scheduling systems which rely on yield exclusively are called "cooperative" or "cooperative multitasking" as opposed to "preemptive".
Traditional (read: old, 1970's and 80's) Unix is cooperatively multitasked in the kernel, with a preemptive user space. The kernel routines are trusted to yield in a reasonable time, and so preemption is disabled when running kernel code. This greatly simplifies kernel coding and improves reliability, at the expense of performance, especially when multiple processors are introduced. Linux was like this for many years.
Why can't a context switch happen when an interrupt handler is executing ? More specifically, in the linux kernel, interrupt handlers run in the context of the process that was interrupted. Why is it not possible to do a context switch in the interrupt handler to schedule another process ?
On a multiprocessor, a context switch can certainly happen while an interrupt handler is executing. In fact, it would be difficult to prevent.
On a single-CPU machine, by definition it can only be running one thread of control at a time. It only has one register set, one ALU, etc. So if the interrupt handler is running there simply are no resources with which to execute a context switch.
Now, if you mean, can the interrupt handler actually call the context switch code and make one happen, well, I suppose on some systems that could be made to work. But for most, this wouldn't have much value and would be difficult to arrange. The CPU is running at elevated priority, and this priority cannot be lowered or synchronization between interrupt levels is lost. Critical sections in the OS are already synchronizing against interrupt execution and this would introduce complexities. Furthermore, a context switch happens by changing stacks, much like in a threaded user mode program, so it's hard to imagine how this might happen when the interrupt stack is needed for a return from the interrupt.
A couple of reasons, I guess, depending on the meaning of your question:
Q: Why would context switching during an interrupt be bad?
A: Interrupts are generally for interacting with hardware. Hardware is typically time-sensitive so the OS can't just stop dealing with it in the middle of something and come back when it feels like it.
Q: What stops a context switch from happening during an interrupt?
A: An interrupt happens in a special interrupt context, not a regular process context. Since it's not in a process, it's not subject to context switching as a normal process would be.
There's probably a better, deeper explanation to be made, but that's the extent of my own understanding of the matter.