From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Philippe Gerum In-Reply-To: <1288033731.26618.161.camel@domain.hid> References: <20101007115728.GA24500@domain.hid> <4CADBDC2.8080600@domain.hid> <20101008070148.GB2255@domain.hid> <1286530884.13186.109.camel@domain.hid> <20101013090353.GA6902@domain.hid> <1286961375.1759.71.camel@domain.hid> <20101013092617.GB6902@domain.hid> <1286981521.1759.83.camel@domain.hid> <1288025329.26618.132.camel@domain.hid> <4CC5C80E.2070004@domain.hid> <1288033731.26618.161.camel@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:11:39 +0200 Message-ID: <1288033899.26618.163.camel@domain.hid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] kernel oopses when killing realtime task List-Id: Help regarding installation and common use of Xenomai List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 21:08 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 20:10 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > Am 25.10.2010 18:48, Philippe Gerum wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 16:52 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Should we test IPIPE_STALL_FLAG on all but current CPUs? > > >> > > >> That would solve this particular issue, but we should drain the pipeline > > >> out of any Xenomai critical section. The way it is done now may induce a > > >> deadlock (e.g. CPU0 waiting for CPU1 to acknowledge critical entry in > > >> ipipe_enter_critical when getting some IPI, and CPU1 waiting hw IRQs off > > >> for CPU0 to release the Xenomai lock that annoys us right now). > > >> > > >> I'll come up with something hopefully better and tested in the next > > >> days. > > >> > > > > > > Sorry for the lag. In case that helps, here is another approach, based > > > on telling the pipeline to ignore the irq about to be detached, so that > > > it passes all further occurrences down to the next domain, without > > > > Err, won't this irritate that next domain, ie. won't Linux dump warnings > > about a spurious/unhandled IRQ? I think either the old handler shall > > receive the last event or no one. > > Flipping the IRQ modes within a ipipe_critical_enter/exit section gives > you that guarantee. You are supposed to have disabled the irq line > before detaching, and critical IPIs cannot be acknowledged until all > CPUs have re-enabled interrupts at some point. Therefore, there are only > two scenarii: > > - irq was disabled before delivery, and a pending interrupt is masked by > the PIC and never delivered to the CPU. > > - an interrupt sneaked in before disabling, it is currently processed by > the pipeline in the low handler on some CPU, in which case interrupts > are off, so a critical IPI could s,,not, > be acked yet, and the irq mode bits > still allow dispatching to the target domain on that CPU. The assumption > which is happily made is that only head domains are interested in > un-virtualizing irqs, so the dispatch will happen immediately, while the > handler is still valid (actually, we are not allowed to un-virtualize > root irqs, and intermediate Adeos domains are already considered as > endangered species, so this is fine). > > > > > Why this complex solution, why not simply draining (via critical_enter > > or whatever) - but _after_ xnintr_irq_detach, ie. while the related > > resources are still valid? > > > > Because it's already too late. You have cleared the handler pointer when > un-virtualizing via xnarch_release_irq, and the wired irq dispatcher or > the log syncer on another CPU could then branch to eip $0. > > And the solution is - reasonably - complex because xnintr_detach has > quite a few inter-deps. Typically, you may not drop the lock Xenomai > holds on the irq descriptor before calling xnarch_release_irq, to avoid > a race with xnintr_irq_handler in SMP (you could get a NULL cookie > there). > > I would have preferred to have ipipe_virtualize_irq drain the > interrupts, but you just can't rely on a critical IPI while holding a > lock other CPUs might spin on irqs off. And you do need this code to > happen in a critical enter section, to act as a barrier wrt IRQ > dispatching. So the operation is unfold, the irq barrier first with irqs > on, then un-virtualizing the irq (for the relevant domain) with irqs > off. > > > Jan > > > -- Philippe.