linux can 阻塞,中断处理程序为什么不能阻塞休眠？

最新推荐文章于 2022-06-06 13:56:53 发布

YM酱

最新推荐文章于 2022-06-06 13:56:53 发布

阅读量488

点赞数

文章标签： linux can 阻塞

%3D5%26amp%3Bfilter%3Ddigest&page=3

here is a maillist discussing the problem about why cannot sleep in the ISR from linux newbie.

it is worth reading throughout if you do not clear about this question.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

发件人： Learning Linux

发送时间： 2007-05-14 14:40:54

收件人： kernelnewbies@nl.linux.org; linux-newbie@vger.kernel.org

抄送： linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

主题： Why can't we sleep in an ISR?

I have a very basic doubt here ... what makes it impossible to sleep

in an ISR? I mean, I know that the kernel preemption is disabled and

the kernel will panic, but I could not understand why?

TIA,

====================

Learning Linux wrote:

> I have a very basic doubt here ... what makes it impossible to sleep

> in an ISR? I mean, I know that the kernel preemption is disabled and

> the kernel will panic, but I could not understand why?

The impossibility to sleep comes as a natural consequence of the fact

that ISRs have to be fast.

An ISR has to be fast in order to allow other system tasks to happen.

Otherwise it will do a lot of work (like busy waiting) and any other

interrupts will fail to get handled. That would completely render the

system unusable.

On the other hand, when you sleep in a given context, the scheduler is

invoked. That means that the ISR routine would be replaced by a process

from the scheduler's queue(s). But how would you ever know to reschedule

the ISR? After all, it is asynchronous.

This is why ISRs (top halves) and tasklets/softirqs (bottom halves) are

said to be running in interrupt context; processes are said to be

running in process context.

Interrupt context has very strict rules like being unable to sleep or do

a large amount of work (this will render the system unable and, quite

likely, a panic would occur).

Hope this helps. You should be read Robert Love's excellent "Linux

Kernel Development 2nd Edition". It is quite readable and has a pleasant

way of showing you the basic kernel concepts. Chapter 6 is concerned

with interrupts and interrupt handling routines (ISRs).

Razvan

============================

Because the interrupt which you are serving in the ISR has been masked

to avoid preemption( true for maskable inetrrupts ).Any locks you are

holding in ISR are now with you solely. So, if you try to sleep you

take the locks you untill you are rescheduled and complete. This may

lead to a deadlock for the lock resource.

Thus to avoid this, kernel developers disable preemption and also on

every schedule check if you are *in_interrupt*, if you are, you are

probably doing something really bad.So its better to panic in such case.

This is my naive understanding.

Please CMIIW.

========================

> Because the interrupt which you are serving in the

> ISR has been masked to avoid preemption(

> true for maskable inetrrupts ).Any locks you are holding in ISR are now with

> you solely. So, if you try to sleep you take the locks you untill you are

> rescheduled and complete. This may lead to

> a deadlock for the lock resource.

Ok, but how about an ISR, that does not take any locks? Why can't we

sleep in SUCH an ISR?

AFAIK, taking a lock disables kernel preemption, and hence it is not

allowed to sleep. So I think my question would boil down to why is

sleeping not allowed when the kernel preemption is disabled.

========================================

> On the other hand, when you sleep in a given context, the scheduler is

> invoked. That means that the ISR routine would be replaced by a process

> from the scheduler's queue(s). But how would you ever know to reschedule

> the ISR? After all, it is asynchronous.

Uh, this is what I have my doubt about. Yes, the scheduler may try to

replace the current process (already interrupted by the ISR) with

another process.

So, what is the problem with that? Could you please elaborate on the

part "how would you ever know to reschedule the ISR? After all, it is

asynchronous"?

======================================

>> On the other hand, when you sleep in a given context, the scheduler is

>> invoked. That means that the ISR routine would be replaced by a process

>> from the scheduler's queue(s). But how would you ever know to reschedule

>> the ISR? After all, it is asynchronous.

> Uh, this is what I have my doubt about. Yes, the scheduler may try to

> replace the current process (already interrupted by the ISR) with

> another process.

> So, what is the problem with that? Could you please elaborate on the

> part "how would you ever know to reschedule the ISR? After all, it is

> asynchronous"?

Well, the ISR code has to be resumed at some point doesn't it? How would

you know how to "get back" at executing it? There's no ISR scheduling

queue, as there is no process. An ISR can interrupt any given process

(that's what I meant by asynchronous).

And even if that weren't a problem you would still have to deal with

another problem: if an important interrupt (like the timer interrupt)

would sleep and would (somehow) manage to get rescheduled, you would

lose any notion of time within that system; it will inconsistent, and it

will break all other subsystems (like scheduling) (the process time

slice would lose its meaning)

Razvan

===========================

> > I have a very basic doubt here ... what makes it impossible to sleep

> > in an ISR? I mean, I know that the kernel preemption is disabled and

> > the kernel will panic, but I could not understand why?

> Because the interrupt which you are serving in the

> ISR has been masked to avoid preemption(

> true for maskable inetrrupts ).Any locks you are holding in ISR are now with

> you solely. So, if you try to sleep you take the locks you untill you are

> rescheduled and complete. This may lead to

> a deadlock for the lock resource.

Ok, but how about an ISR, that does not take any locks? Why can't we

sleep in SUCH an ISR?

Adding extra complexity is to be refrained from, because such ISRs are very few IMHO.

Moreover on a SMP system why wouldn't you need a lock? preemption is disabled only on the local processor i guess. CMIIW

AFAIK, taking a lock disables kernel preemption, and hence it is not

allowed to sleep. So I think my question would boil down to why is

sleeping not allowed when the kernel preemption is disabled.

Who will preempt you, in this case? i.e to sleep? No one, you will

complete and therefore you should be really fast in doing it.

Becasue you have just disabled kernel preemption. In other words ISR is

not like any other process waiting to run, it is a special kernel

control path which is special because of the reasons you have given.

There is no task struct for your interrupt, no accounting as such AFAIR and etc etc.

It runs in current process's context, isnt it?

HTH

~psr

=====================================

> Well, the ISR code has to be resumed at some point doesn't it? How would

> you know how to "get back" at executing it? There's no ISR scheduling

> queue, as there is no process. An ISR can interrupt any given process

> (that's what I meant by asynchronous).

Yes. The ISR can interrupt any process. But the scheduler is totally

unaware of it (CMIIW). As far as scheduler is concerned, it thinks

that the processor is still executing the code of the process that ISR

interrupted. In fact, all the time ISR executes is deducted from the

timeslice of the process that was interrupted.

Assuming the simple case of 8KB stacks (ISRs share the process stack).

So the scheduler can still perform a context switch saving and

restoring the save of the process it THINKS is currently executing

(The PC will actually point to an address in ISR) and later on restore

from where it left?

==============================

> > AFAIK, taking a lock disables kernel preemption, and hence it is not

> > allowed to sleep. So I think my question would boil down to why is

> > sleeping not allowed when the kernel preemption is disabled.

> Who will preempt you, in this case? i.e to sleep? No one,

> you will complete and therefore you should

> be really fast in doing it.

Ok, lets forget about ISRs and interrupts. Let us say I have a kernel

thread running in process context, and it takes a lock (thus disables

preemption) which is used ONLY by this thread. Now it WANTS to sleep

for some time, while holding a lock.

There surely ARE a lot of runnable processes in the system, who can

run. Now technically sleeping, what stops this process from sleeping?

Why can't this process sleep safely?

Uh, just to clarify, I totally understand that this is not allowed and

will be a bad design. But I just want to understand that in terms of

kernel code, what STOPS this process from going to sleep?

=============================

> >> On the other hand, when you sleep in a given context, the scheduler is

> >> invoked. That means that the ISR routine would be replaced by a process

> >> from the scheduler's queue(s). But how would you ever know to reschedule

> >> the ISR? After all, it is asynchronous.

> >

> > Uh, this is what I have my doubt about. Yes, the scheduler may try to

> > replace the current process (already interrupted by the ISR) with

> > another process.

> >

> > So, what is the problem with that? Could you please elaborate on the

> > part "how would you ever know to reschedule the ISR? After all, it is

> > asynchronous"?

> Well, the ISR code has to be resumed at some point doesn't it? How would

> you know how to "get back" at executing it? There's no ISR scheduling

> queue, as there is no process. An ISR can interrupt any given process

> (that's what I meant by asynchronous).

Yes. The ISR can interrupt any process. But the scheduler is totally

unaware of it (CMIIW). As far as scheduler is concerned, it thinks

that the processor is still executing the code of the process that ISR

interrupted. In fact, all the time ISR executes is deducted from the

timeslice of the process that was interrupted.

===========================

Learning Linux wrote:

> I have a very basic doubt here ... what makes it impossible to sleep

> in an ISR? I mean, I know that the kernel preemption is disabled and

> the kernel will panic, but I could not understand why?

First: an ISR is meant to be very quick. It is supposed to do only a

minimum of work needed to service the interrupt, then exit.

This is important, as other interrupts might be blocked during your ISR.

Sleeping is out of question, even a long-running loop in no-no.

Second: You don't ever need to sleep in an ISR anyway.

Complicated work that might take time or might need to sleep

is not supposed to be in an ISR. If you think you have a need,

tell us what you're up to and hopefully someone will explain

how do do things properly.

When an interrupt happens that needs complicated servicing, the

ISR don't do the whole job. It just acknowledges the interrupt,

perhaps does a few things with the device in question, then it

exits. It leaves the rest of the work for a bottom half or kernel

thread or something like that. Kernel threads may sleep . . .

Helge Hafting

=================================

My understanding is as follows.

Whenever the kernel code sleeps, it means the latest process running

in user space will have to wait for the event on which the kernel code

sleeps.

It makes sense for an exception handler to sleep because an exception

handler always serves the latest process running in user space. So a

process can complain nothing for it having to wait for the event on

which the exception handler in its own context sleeps.

It makes no sense for an ISR to sleep because an ISR does not

necessarily serve the latest process (that is, the interrupted

process). It makes no sense having a process wait for the event having

nothing to do with it.

I could be wrong, so please correct me if the understanding is not right.

Dong Feng=======================

On 5/14/07, Learning Linux wrote:

> Ok, but how about an ISR, that does not take any locks? Why can't we

> sleep in SUCH an ISR?

> LL

> -

The killer reason why you can't sleep in an interrupt is because an

interrupt is not associated with any context in the first place. What

is a context, then? It is the state information for a process. This

includes the kernel and userspace stack pointers, the register set,

and the page tables for that process. The scheduler has access to all

this information, to preempt one process and run another. Contrary to

this, an interrupt, depending on the version of your kernel and arch,

uses a separate irq stack or the kernel stack of the interrupted

process. An irq is not a context but merely a temporary execution to

be concluded asap.

Hope this helps,

Bahadir

=======================================

I agree that the reason an interrupt can not sleep is because an

interrupt is not associated with any context. But I do not agree that

it is specifically because the scheduler can not *resume* the context.

In early version, the ISR always borrow the stack of the currently

running process, so if the kernel design had allowed ISR sleep, it

would automatically be able to implement the context switch naturally.

But ISR sleep has been forbidden from the very beginning.

The reason why kernel design does not allow ISR sleep is because a

process should not be forced to wait for a event that irrelative to

itself. When an exception handler sleep, the event it sleeps on is

always in some sense related to the process incurring that exception.

But if an ISR was allowed to sleep, the event it sleeps on would have

nothing to do with the process being interrupted.

So my understanding is, the forbidden of ISR sleep is not because of

the difficulty to resume context, but because a process should not

wait for irrelative event.

Dong Feng================================

On 5/14/07, Bahadir Balban wrote:

On 5/14/07, Learning Linux wrote:

> Ok, but how about an ISR, that does not take any locks? Why can't we

> sleep in SUCH an ISR?

> LL

> -

The killer reason why you can't sleep in an interrupt is because an

interrupt is not associated with any context in the first place.

good enough, but i have a query regarding this then.

On a 8K kernel stack system, doesn't interrupts share the stack associated with the current process which was interrupted?

Doesn't interrupt steals the CPU slice time allocated to the running process to run?

Doesn't it run in current process's context ?

What am i missing here?

Thanks

~psr

=====================================

> good enough, but i have a query regarding this then.

> On a 8K kernel stack system, doesn't interrupts share the stack associated

> with the current process which was interrupted?

Yes, I think so.

> Doesn't interrupt steals the CPU slice time allocated to the running process

> to run?

I don't think so but I am not sure.

> Doesn't it run in current process's context ?

No. I think the concept of process context is a higher-level logical

concept. Though the interrupt share stack with the interrupted

process, in my opinion it logically does not share the context with

the process.

> What am i missing here?

> Thanks

> ~psr

But I do not see the exact relationship between your specific queries

and the original question. Could you elaborate?

Dong Feng===================================

On 5/15/07, Dong Feng wrote:

> good enough, but i have a query regarding this then.

> On a 8K kernel stack system, doesn't interrupts share the stack associated

> with the current process which was interrupted?

Yes, I think so.

Yes it does.

> Doesn't interrupt steals the CPU slice time allocated to the running process

> to run?

I don't think so but I am not sure.

Aliter, i think so.How can an interrupt's execution time go unaccounted then?

I guess it does not, only the current processes running time is accounted for.

Thoughts?

> Doesn't it run in current process's context ?

No. I think the concept of process context is a higher-level logical

concept. Though the interrupt share stack with the interrupted

process, in my opinion it logically does not share the context with

the process.

Yes, you are right as i can infer. thats why ISRs are special kernel control paths.

But the poster asked, why can't we make ISRs to share context with the interrupted process if

it not holding any locks? This is rather a desing issues IMO rather than imlementation, isnt it?

I guess even if it is possible, it would over complicate the handler

code. Better trying to keep it simple i guess. Please CMIIW

[snip]

But I do not see the exact relationship between your specific queries

and the original question. Could you elaborate?

My query here was related to your previous reply.Just wanted to pit some doubts as raised by the orirignal poster.That's it.

Thank you

~psr

================================

> >

> > I don't think so but I am not sure.

> Aliter, i think so.How can an interrupt's execution time go

> unaccounted then?

> I guess it does not, only the current processes running

> time is accounted for.

> Thoughts?

The interrupt handler's execution time will definitely defer the

execution of the process, but I think it does not steal the process's

time slice (the time_slice field not subtracted).

> > > Doesn't it run in current process's context ?

> > >

> >

> > No. I think the concept of process context is a higher-level logical

> > concept. Though the interrupt share stack with the interrupted

> > process, in my opinion it logically does not share the context with

> > the process.

> Yes, you are right as i can infer. thats why ISRs

> are special kernel control paths.

> But the poster asked, why can't we make ISRs to

> share context with the interrupted process

> if

> it not holding any locks? This is rather a desing issues

> IMO rather than imlementation, isnt it?

> I guess even if it is possible, it would over complicate the handler code.

> Better trying to keep it simple i guess. Please CMIIW

My understanding is, the ISR is in different context from the process

because of the definition of term *context*. In my opinion, to say two

code pieces running in the same context means that two pieces of code

has some logical relationship to meet a common objective. That's why I

said *context* is a higher-level logical concept. It's not a concept

defined in the level of hardware or code implementation, but instead

in the level of logical. I think, by its definition, it makes no sense

to say an ISR share context with the process interrupted by it because

an ISR just randomly interrupts a process, with no logical

relationship.

Dong Feng========================

On 5/15/07, Dong Feng wrote:

> >

> > I don't think so but I am not sure.

> Aliter, i think so.How can an interrupt's execution time go

> unaccounted then?

> I guess it does not, only the current processes running

> time is accounted for.

> Thoughts?

The interrupt handler's execution time will definitely defer the

execution of the process, but I think it does not steal the process's

time slice (the time_slice field not subtracted).

Ok, if i accept this, how does that explains this-

Following code snippet is from main schedule() function[kernel 2.6.20.1] -

now = sched_clock();

if(likely((long long)(now - prev->timestamp) < NS_MAX_SLEEP_AVG)) {

run_time = now - prev->timestamp;

/* blah blah */

} else

run_time = NS_MAX_SLEEP_AVG;

Now, AFAIK runtime = now - prev->timestamp; will get you a value

which ( prev->timestamp is *stamped* during previous switching of

the tasks) is difference of this previous stamp and now value.

Assuming before this schedule() an interrupt was served, then where did

the time spent in ISR accounting is adjusted? I guess this is the code,

where it is checking for a *possible* runtime to overshoot its

stipulated NS_MAX_SLEEP_AVG and resetting this. Isn't it?

And exactly why would that happen?

Perhaps because the process was about to expire its slice when somebody

barged in and stole its share and also overshot the stipulated time(may

be very less though).

Can you help me in clearing this?