2023-11-05 04:23:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
=================
|
|
|
|
|
Critical Sections
|
|
|
|
|
=================
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-11-05 04:59:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Types and Effects of Critical Sections
|
|
|
|
|
======================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A critical section is a short sequence of code where exclusive execution is
|
|
|
|
|
assured by globally disabling other activities while that code sequence executes.
|
|
|
|
|
When we discuss critical sections here we really refer to one of two mechanisms:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* **Critical Section proper** A critical section is established by calling
|
|
|
|
|
``enter_critical_section()``; the code sequence exits the critical section by
|
|
|
|
|
calling ``leave_critical_section()``. For the single CPU case, this amounts to
|
|
|
|
|
simply disabling interrupts but is more complex in the SMP case where spinlocks
|
|
|
|
|
are also involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* **Disabling Pre-emption** This is a related mechanism that is lumped into this
|
|
|
|
|
discussion because of the similarity of its effects on the system. When pre-emption
|
|
|
|
|
is disabled (via ``sched_lock()``), interrupts remain enabled, but context switches
|
|
|
|
|
may not occur; the current task is locked in place and cannot be suspended until
|
|
|
|
|
the scheduler is unlocked (via ``sched_unlock()``).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The use of either mechanism will always harm real-time performance.
|
|
|
|
|
The effects of critical sections on real-time performance is discussed in
|
2023-11-05 17:16:13 +08:00
|
|
|
|
:doc:`/implementation/preemption_latency`.
|
2023-11-05 04:59:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
The end result is that a certain amount of **jitter** is added to the real-time response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Critical sections cannot be avoided within the OS and, as a consequence, a certain
|
|
|
|
|
amount of "jitter" in the response time is expected. The important thing is to monitor
|
|
|
|
|
the maximum time that critical sections are in place in order to manage that jitter so
|
|
|
|
|
that the variability in response time is within an acceptable range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: This discussion applies to Normal interrupt processing. Most of this discussion
|
|
|
|
|
does not apply to :doc:`/guides/zerolatencyinterrupts`. Those interrupts are not masked
|
|
|
|
|
in the same fashion and none of the issues address in this page apply to those
|
|
|
|
|
interrupts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-11-05 04:23:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Single CPU Critical Sections
|
|
|
|
|
============================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OS Interfaces
|
|
|
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before we talk about SMP Critical Sections let's first review the internal OS
|
2023-11-24 05:31:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
interfaces available and what they do in the single CPU case:
|
2023-11-05 04:23:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``up_irq_save()`` (and its companion, ``up_irq_restore()``). These simple
|
|
|
|
|
interfaces just enable and disable interrupts globally. This is the simplest
|
|
|
|
|
way to establish a critical section in the single CPU case. It does have
|
|
|
|
|
side-effects to real-time behavior as discussed elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``up_irq_save()`` should never be called directly, however. Instead, the wrapper
|
|
|
|
|
macros enter_critical_section() (and its companion ``leave_critical_section()``)
|
|
|
|
|
or ``spin_lock_irqsave()`` (and ``spin_unlock_irqrestore()``) should be used.
|
|
|
|
|
In the single CPU case, these macros are defined to be simply ``up_irq_save()``
|
|
|
|
|
(or ``up_irq_save()``). Rather than being called directly, they should always
|
|
|
|
|
be called indirectly through these macros so that the code will function in the
|
|
|
|
|
SMP environment as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Finally, there is ``sched_lock()`` (and ``sched_unlock()``) that disable (and
|
|
|
|
|
enable) pre-emption. That is, ``sched_lock()`` will lock your kernel thread in
|
|
|
|
|
place and prevent other tasks from running. Interrupts are still enabled, but
|
|
|
|
|
other tasks cannot run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using sched_lock() for Critical Sections – **DON'T**
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the single CPU case, ``sched_lock()`` can do a pretty good job of establishing a
|
|
|
|
|
critical section too. After all, if no other tasks can run on the single CPU,
|
|
|
|
|
then that task has pretty much exclusive access to all resources (provided that
|
|
|
|
|
those resources are not shared with interrupt handlers). However, ``sched_lock()``
|
|
|
|
|
must never be used to establish a critical section because it does not work the
|
|
|
|
|
same way in the SMP case. In the SMP case, locking the scheduer does not provide
|
|
|
|
|
any kind of exclusive access to resources. Tasks running on other CPUs are still
|
|
|
|
|
free to do whatever they wish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMP Critical Sections
|
|
|
|
|
=====================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``up_irq_save()`` and ``up_irq_restore()``
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As mentioned, ``up_irq_save()`` and ``up_irq_restore()`` should never be called
|
|
|
|
|
directly. That is because the behavior is different in multiple CPU systems. In
|
|
|
|
|
the multiple CPU case, these functions only enable (or disable) interrupts on the
|
|
|
|
|
local CPU. They have no effect on interrupts in the other CPUs and hence really
|
|
|
|
|
accomplish very little. Certainly they do not provide a critical section in any
|
|
|
|
|
sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``enter_critical_section()`` and ``leave_critical_section()``
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**spinlocks**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to establish a critical section, we also need to employ spinlocks. Spins
|
|
|
|
|
locks are simply loops that execute in one processor. If processor A sets spinlock
|
|
|
|
|
x, then processor B would have to wait for the spinlock like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while (test_and_set(x))
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where test and set is an atomic operation that sets the value of a memory location
|
|
|
|
|
but also returns its previous value. Here we are talking about atomic in terms of
|
|
|
|
|
memory bus operations: The testing and setting of the memory location must be atomic
|
|
|
|
|
with respect to other bus operations. Special hardware support of some kind is
|
|
|
|
|
necessary to implement ``test_and_set()`` logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Task A released the lock x, Task B will successfully take the spinlock and
|
|
|
|
|
continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without going into the details of the implementation of ``enter_critical_section()``
|
|
|
|
|
suffice it to say that it (1) disables interrupts on the local CPU and (2) uses
|
|
|
|
|
spinlocks to assure exclusive access to a code sequence across all CPUs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE that a critical section is indeed created: While within the critical section,
|
|
|
|
|
the code does have exclusive access to the resource being protected. However the
|
|
|
|
|
behavior is really very different:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* In the single CPU case, disable interrupts stops all possible activity from any
|
|
|
|
|
other task. The single CPU becomes single threaded and un-interruptible.
|
|
|
|
|
* In the SMP case, tasks continue to run on other CPUs. It is only when those other
|
|
|
|
|
tasks attempt to enter a code sequence protected by the critical section that those
|
|
|
|
|
tasks on other CPUs will be stopped. They will be stopped waiting on a spinlock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``spin_lock_irqsave()`` and ``spin_unlock_irqrestore()``
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Generic Interrupt Controller (GIC)**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARM provides a special, optional sub-system called MPCore that provides
|
|
|
|
|
multi-core support. One MPCore component is the Generic Interrupt Controller
|
|
|
|
|
or GIC. The GIC supports 16 inter-processor interrupts and is a key component for
|
|
|
|
|
implementing SMP on those platforms. The are called Software Generated Interrupts
|
|
|
|
|
or SGIs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One odd behavior of the GIC is that the SGIs cannot be disabled (at least not
|
|
|
|
|
using the standard ARM global interrupt disable logic). So disabling local
|
|
|
|
|
interrupts does not prevent these GIC interrupts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This causes numerous complexities and significant overhead in establishing a
|
|
|
|
|
critical section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**ARMv7-M NVIC**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The GIC is available in all recent ARM architectures. However, most embedded
|
|
|
|
|
ARM7-M multi-core CPUs just incorporate the inter-processor interrupts as a
|
|
|
|
|
normal interrupt that is mask-able via the NVIC (each CPU will have its own NVIC).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This means in those cases, the critical section logic can be greatly simplified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Implementation**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the case of the GIC with no support for disabling interrupts,
|
|
|
|
|
``spin_lock_irqsave()`` and ``spin_unlock_irqstore()`` are equivalent to
|
|
|
|
|
``enter_critical_section()`` and ``leave_critical_section()``. In is only in the
|
|
|
|
|
case where inter-processor interrupts can be disabled that there is a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In that case, ``spin_lock_irqsave()`` will disable local interrupts and take
|
|
|
|
|
a spinlock. This is really very simple and efficient implementation of a critical
|
|
|
|
|
section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two important things to note, however:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The logic within this critical section must never suspend! For example, if
|
|
|
|
|
code were to call ``spin_lock_irqsave()`` then ``sleep()``, then the sleep
|
|
|
|
|
would occur with the spinlock in the lock state and the whole system could
|
|
|
|
|
be blocked. Rather, ``spin_lock_irqsave()`` can only be used with straight
|
|
|
|
|
line code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* This is a different critical section than the one established via
|
|
|
|
|
``enter_critical_section()``. Taking one critical section, does not prevent
|
|
|
|
|
logic on another CPU from taking the other critical section and the result
|
|
|
|
|
is that you make not have the protection that you think you have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``sched_lock()`` and ``sched_unlock()``
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other than some details, the SMP ``sched_lock()`` works much like it does in
|
|
|
|
|
the single CPU case. Here are the caveats:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* As in the single CPU case, the case that calls ``sched_lock()`` is locked
|
|
|
|
|
in place and cannot be suspected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* However, tasks will continue to run on other CPUs so ``sched_lock()`` cannot
|
|
|
|
|
be used as a critical section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Tasks on other CPUs are also locked in place. However, they may opt to suspend
|
|
|
|
|
themselves at any time (say, via ``sleep()``). In that case, only the CPU's
|
|
|
|
|
IDLE task will be permitted to run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-11-05 04:59:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
The Critical Section Monitor
|
|
|
|
|
============================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Internal OS Hooks
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**The Critical Section Monitor**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to measure the time that tasks hold critical sections, the OS supports
|
|
|
|
|
a Critical Section Monitor. This is internal instrumentation that records the
|
|
|
|
|
time that a task holds a critical section. It also records the amount of time
|
|
|
|
|
that interrupts are disabled globally. The Critical Section Monitor then retains
|
|
|
|
|
the maximum time that the critical section is in place, both per-task and globally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Critical Section Monitor is enabled with the following setting in the
|
|
|
|
|
configuration::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONFIG_SCHED_CRITMONITOR=y
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Perf Timers interface**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. todo:: missing description for perf_xxx interface
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Per Thread and Global Critical Sections**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In NuttX critical sections are controlled on a per-task basis. For example,
|
|
|
|
|
consider the following code sequence:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
irqstate_t flags = enter_critical_section();
|
|
|
|
|
sleep(5);
|
|
|
|
|
leave_critical_section(flags);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The task, say Task A, establishes the critical section with
|
|
|
|
|
``enter_critical_section()``, but when Task A is suspended by the ``sleep(5)``
|
|
|
|
|
statement, it relinquishes the critical section. The state of the system will
|
|
|
|
|
then be determined by the next task to be resumed, say Task B: Typically, the
|
|
|
|
|
next task will not be in a critical section and so the critical section is
|
|
|
|
|
broken while the task sleeps. That critical section will be re-established when
|
|
|
|
|
that Task A runs again after the sleep time expires.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, if Task B that is resumed is also within a critical section, then the
|
|
|
|
|
critical section will be extended even longer! This is why the global time that
|
|
|
|
|
the critical section in place may be longer than any time that an individual
|
|
|
|
|
thread holds the critical section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ProcFS
|
|
|
|
|
------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The OS reports these maximum times via the ProcFS file system, typically
|
|
|
|
|
mounted at ``/proc``:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The ``/proc/<ID>/critmon`` pseudo-file reports the per-thread maximum value
|
|
|
|
|
for thread ID = <ID>. There is one instance of this critmon file for each
|
|
|
|
|
active task in the system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The ``/proc/critmon`` pseuo-file reports similar information for the global
|
|
|
|
|
state of the CPU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The form of the output from the ``/proc/<ID>/critmon`` file is::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X.XXXXXXXXX,X.XXXXXXXXX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where ``X.XXXXXXXXX`` is the time in seconds with nanosecond precision
|
|
|
|
|
(but not necessarily accuracy, accuracy is dependent on the timing clock
|
|
|
|
|
source). The first number is the maximum time that the held pre-emption
|
|
|
|
|
disabled; the second number number is the longest duration that the critical
|
|
|
|
|
section was held.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This file cat be read from NSH like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: bash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nsh> cat /proc/1/critmon
|
|
|
|
|
0.000009610,0.000001165
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-11-24 05:31:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
The form of the output from the ``/proc/critmon`` file is similar::
|
2023-11-05 04:59:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X,X.XXXXXXXXX,X.XXXXXXXXX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where the first X is the CPU number and the following two numbers have the
|
|
|
|
|
same interpretation as for ``/proc/<ID>/critmon``. In the single CPU case,
|
|
|
|
|
there will be one line in the pseudo-file with ``X=0``; in the SMP case
|
|
|
|
|
there will be multiple lines, one for each CPU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This file can also be read from NSH:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: bash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nsh> cat /proc/critmon
|
|
|
|
|
0,0.000009902,0.000023590
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These statistics are cleared each time that the pseudo-file is read so that
|
|
|
|
|
the reported values are the maximum since the last time that the ProcFS pseudo
|
|
|
|
|
file was read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``apps/system/critmon``
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-11-24 05:31:11 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Also available is a application daemon at ``apps/system/critmon``. This daemon
|
2023-11-05 04:59:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
periodically reads the ProcFS files described above and dumps the output to
|
|
|
|
|
stdout. This daemon is enabled with:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: bash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nsh> critmon_start
|
|
|
|
|
Csection Monitor: Started: 3
|
|
|
|
|
Csection Monitor: Running: 3
|
|
|
|
|
nsh>
|
|
|
|
|
PRE-EMPTION CSECTION PID DESCRIPTION
|
|
|
|
|
MAX DISABLE MAX TIME
|
|
|
|
|
0.000100767 0.000005242 --- CPU 0
|
|
|
|
|
0.000000292 0.000023590 0 Idle Task
|
|
|
|
|
0.000036696 0.000004078 1 init
|
|
|
|
|
0.000000000 0.000014562 3 Csection Monitor
|
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And can be stopped with:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: bash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nsh> critmon_stop
|
|
|
|
|
Csection Monitor: Stopping: 3
|
|
|
|
|
Csection Monitor: Stopped: 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRQ Monitor and Worst Case Response Time
|
|
|
|
|
========================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The IRQ Monitor is additional OS instrumentation. A full discusssion of the
|
|
|
|
|
IRQ Monitor is beyond the scope of this page. Suffice it to say:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The IRQ Monitor is enabled with ``CONFIG_SCHED_IRQMONITOR=y``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* The data collected by the IRQ Monitor is provided in ``/proc/irqs``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* This data can also be viewed using the ``nsh> irqinfo`` command.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* This data includes the number of interrupts received for each IRQ and the
|
|
|
|
|
time required to process the interrupt, from entry into the attached
|
|
|
|
|
interrupt handler until exit from the interrupt handler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From this information we can calculate the worst case response time from
|
|
|
|
|
interrupt request until a task runs that can process the the interrupt.
|
|
|
|
|
That worst cast response time, ``Tresp``, is given by:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``Tresp1 = Tcrit + Tintr + C1``
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``Tresp2 = Tintr + Tpreempt + C2``
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``Tresp = MAX(Tresp1, Tresp2)``
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``C1`` and ``C2`` are unknown, irreducible constants that reflect such things as
|
|
|
|
|
hardware interrupt latency and context switching time,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``Tcrit`` is the longest observed time within a critical section,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``Tintr`` is the time required for interrupt handler execution for the event
|
|
|
|
|
of interest, and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``Tpreempt`` is the longest observed time with preemption disabled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#. This calculation assumes that the task of interest is the highest priority task
|
|
|
|
|
in the system. It does not consider the possibility of the responding task being
|
|
|
|
|
delayed due to insufficient priority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#. This calculation does not address the case where the interfering task has both
|
|
|
|
|
preemption disabled and holds the critical section. Certainly Tresp1 is valid
|
|
|
|
|
in this case, but Tresp2 is not. There might some additional, unmeasured delay
|
|
|
|
|
after the interrupt and before the responding task can run depending on the order
|
|
|
|
|
in which the critical section is released and preemption is re-enabled:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* When the task leaves the critical section, the pending interrupt will execute
|
|
|
|
|
immediately with or without preemption enabled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If preemption is enabled first, then the will be no delay after the interrupt
|
|
|
|
|
because preemption will be enabled when the interrupt returns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If the task leaves critical section first, then there will be some small delay
|
|
|
|
|
of unknown duration after the interrupts returns and before the responding
|
|
|
|
|
task can run because preemption will be disabled when the interrupt returns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#. This calculation does not address concurrent interrupts. All interrupts run at the
|
|
|
|
|
same priority and if an interrupt request occurs while within an interrupt handler,
|
|
|
|
|
then it must pend until completion of that interrupt. So perhaps the above formula
|
|
|
|
|
for ``Tresp1`` should instead be the following? (This assumes that hardware arbitration
|
|
|
|
|
is such that the interrupt of interest will be deferred by no more than one interrupt).
|
|
|
|
|
Concurrent, nested interrupts might be better supported with prioritized.
|
|
|
|
|
See more: :doc:`/guides/nestedinterrupts`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``Tresp1 = Tcrit + Tintrmax + Tintr + C1``
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``Tintrmax`` is the longest interrupt processing time of all interrupt sources
|
|
|
|
|
(excluding the interrupt for the event under consideration).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What can you do?
|
|
|
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What can you do if the timing data indicates that you cannot meet your deadline?
|
|
|
|
|
You have these options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#. Use these tools to find the exact function that holds the critical section or
|
|
|
|
|
disables preemption too long. Then optimize that function so that it releases
|
|
|
|
|
that resource sooner. Often critical sections are established over long sequences
|
|
|
|
|
or code when they could be re-designed to use critical sections over shorter code
|
|
|
|
|
sequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-05-04 06:52:17 +08:00
|
|
|
|
#. In some cases, use of critical sections or disabling of pre-emption could be replaced
|
2023-11-05 04:59:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
with a locking semaphore. The scope of the locking effect for the use of such locks
|
|
|
|
|
is not global but is limited only to tasks that share the same resource. Critical
|
|
|
|
|
sections should correctly be used only to protect resources that are shared between
|
|
|
|
|
tasking level logic and interrupt level logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#. Switch to :doc:`/guides/zerolatencyinterrupts`. Those interrupts are not subject
|
|
|
|
|
to most of the issues discussed in this page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**NOTE**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few places in the OS were preemption is disabled via ``sched_lock()`` in
|
|
|
|
|
order to establish a critical section. That is an incorrect use of ``sched_lock()``.
|
|
|
|
|
``sched_lock()`` simply prevents the currently executing task from being suspended.
|
|
|
|
|
For the case of the single CPU platform, that does effectively create a critical
|
|
|
|
|
section: Since no other task can run, the locking task does have exclusive access
|
|
|
|
|
to all resources that are not shared with interrupt level logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But in the multi-CPU SMP case that is not true. ``sched_lock()`` still keeps the
|
|
|
|
|
current task running on CPU from being suspended, but it does not support any
|
|
|
|
|
exclusivity in accesses because there will be other tasks running on other CPUs
|
|
|
|
|
that may access the same resources.
|