Consider the following Pseudo-C code:
static int G = 0;
void alrm_handler(int signo) {
G = 1;
}
void son() {
struct sched_param param;
param.sched_priority = 50;
sched_setscheduler(getpid(),SCHED_FIFO, ¶m);
kill(getppid(), SIG_ALRM);
sched_yield();
printf("A\n");
while(1);
exit(0);
}
int main() {
signal(SIG_ALRM, alrm_handler);
int son_pid = fork();
if(son_pid==0)
son();
waitpid(son_pid);
printf("B\n");
return 0;
}
It's from an exam in OS. The question is as follows:
In multi cores CPU what would be printed?
The answers is that we can't know because it could be A and then B or B and then A. I don't understand why. If parent is waiting for the son with waitpid and the son sends signal SIG_ALRM which invokes the alrm_handler function for the parent, the parent will finish executing the function and then return to waiting the son until he will finish running, no? So it should be A and then B.
According to POSIX it is undefined whether system calls are restarted after a signal handler set by signal is called.
System V and the Linux signal system call do not restart system calls.
BSD and by default GLibc, do restart system calls.
If System V signal is used waitpid can return as soon the signal has been sent, allowing the letters to be printed in any order. If standard output is a pipe or regular file only B will be output as the child is in a infinite loop
With BSD signal only A will be printed as waitpid does not return due to the infinite loop in the child. If standard output is a pipe or regular file only nothing will be output.
Related
What I'm trying to do is fairly simple. Transmit through DMA and wait till it gets transmitted. And then receive and wait till it is received.
When I comment out the receive part(including the call back), it is going into the transmit complete call back function. But when I un-comment the receive portion, it is not going into the tx cplt call back and it is directly going into the receive cplt callback. And when I check the receive buffer I'm not getting what I expected(obviously). What could have gone wrong?
I'm using Atollic True Studio V 9.0 , CubeMx v5.1.0, STM32F407VG-DISC1 board and enabled DMA for UART2.
I've tried sending char buffer through UART DMA and receive it. It seems it is not transmitting at all as it is not going into txCplt call back. And it is directly going into Rxcplt call back.
uint8_t tx_arr[10], rx_arr[10];
__IO ITStatus UartReady = RESET;
int main(void)
{
int i = 0;
for(i = 0; i<10; i++)
rx_arr[i] = 0;
for(i = 0; i<10; i++)
tx_arr[i] = i*2;
HAL_Init();
SystemClock_Config();
MX_GPIO_Init();
MX_DMA_Init();
MX_USART6_UART_Init();
MX_USART2_UART_Init();
while (1)
{
if( HAL_UART_Transmit_DMA(&huart2, (uint8_t*)tx_arr, 10)!= HAL_OK )
{
Error_Handler();
}
while(UartReady != SET)
{
}
UartReady = RESET;
if( HAL_UART_Receive_DMA(&huart2, (uint8_t*)rx_arr, 10)!= HAL_OK )
{
Error_Handler();
}
while(UartReady != SET)
{
}
UartReady = RESET;
}
}
void HAL_UART_TxCpltCallback(UART_HandleTypeDef *huart)
{
UartReady = SET;
}
void HAL_UART_RxCpltCallback(UART_HandleTypeDef *huart)
{
UartReady = SET;
}
I expect the rx_arr will get filled by 0,2,4,6,...18 but it is getting filled with junk
As this looks to me, the reason is that you are using the same flag variable from both ISRs, both times doing busy waiting in your main loop.
If you uncomment both handler actions, you will sooner or later end up with a race condition where both handlers put their "SET" value quickly one by one - before the main loop waits for it. Then, the main loop "consumes" this flag by setting the variable back to "RESET". A few lines later, the other waiting loop comes and isn't served (because both ISRs ran earlier and only left a single "SET" value, one overwriting the other). Then, your main loop is stuck.
In order to verify my assumption, you can activate a one-sided watchdog before entering into the main loop, and trigger it every main loop cycle. If the main loop gets stuck as I assume, you will detect that the reset cause points to the watchdog afterwards.
Suppose I have a libusb program that just uses the hotplug API. You register a callback and then apparently have to call libusb_handle_events() in a loop which then calls your hotplug callback.
int LIBUSB_CALL hotplugCallback(libusb_context* ctx,
libusb_device* device,
libusb_hotplug_event event,
void* user_data)
{
cout << "Device plugged in or unplugged";
}
void main()
{
libusb_init(nullptr);
libusb_hotplug_register_callback(nullptr,
static_cast<libusb_hotplug_event>(LIBUSB_HOTPLUG_EVENT_DEVICE_ARRIVED | LIBUSB_HOTPLUG_EVENT_DEVICE_LEFT),
LIBUSB_HOTPLUG_NO_FLAGS,
LIBUSB_HOTPLUG_MATCH_ANY,
LIBUSB_HOTPLUG_MATCH_ANY,
LIBUSB_HOTPLUG_MATCH_ANY,
&hotplugCallback,
this,
&hotplugCallbackHandle);
for (;;)
{
if (libusb_handle_events_completed(nullptr, nullptr) != LIBUSB_SUCCESS)
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
The question is, without timeout hacks how can I exit this event loop cleanly? I can't find any functions that force libusb_handle_events() (or libusb_handle_events_completed()) to return. In theory they could just never return.
Sorry if this is late.
The question could have been phrased better but I'm assuming (from your comment updates) that your actual program resembles something a little closer to this:
int LIBUSB_CALL hotplugCallback(libusb_context *ctx,
libusb_device *device,
libusb_hotplug_event event,
void *user_data) {
cout << "Device plugged in or unplugged";
}
void SomeClass::someFunction() {
libusb_init(nullptr);
libusb_hotplug_register_callback(nullptr,
static_cast<libusb_hotplug_event>(LIBUSB_HOTPLUG_EVENT_DEVICE_ARRIVED | LIBUSB_HOTPLUG_EVENT_DEVICE_LEFT),
LIBUSB_HOTPLUG_NO_FLAGS,
LIBUSB_HOTPLUG_MATCH_ANY,
LIBUSB_HOTPLUG_MATCH_ANY,
LIBUSB_HOTPLUG_MATCH_ANY,
&hotplugCallback,
this,
&hotplugCallbackHandle);
this->thread = std::thread([this]() {
while (this->handlingEvents) {
int error = libusb_handle_events_completed(context, nullptr);
}
});
}
Let's say your object is being deallocated and, no matter what is happening on the USB bus, you don't care and you want to clean up your thread.
You negate this->handlingEvents and you call thread.join() and the thread hangs for 60 seconds and then execution resumes.
This is done because the default behavior of libusb_handle_events_completed calls libusb_handle_events_timeout_completed and passes in a 60 second timeout interval with plans to make it infinite.
The way you force libusb_handle_events_completed to return is you call libusb_hotplug_deregister_callback which wakes up libusb_handle_events(), causing the function to return.
There is more info about this behavior in the docs.
So your destructor (or wherever you want to stop listening immediately) for the class could look something like this:
SomeClass::~SomeClass() {
this->handlingEvents = false;
libusb_hotplug_deregister_callback(context, hotplugCallbackHandle);
if (this->thread.joinable()) this->thread.join();
libusb_exit(this->context);
}
In the function:
int libusb_handle_events_completed(libusb_context* ctx, int* completed)
You can change the value of the completed to "1" so the function will return without blocking
According to their docs:
If the parameter completed is not NULL then after obtaining the event
handling lock this function will return immediately if the integer
pointed to is not 0. This allows for race free waiting for the
completion of a specific transfer.
There is no functions in libusb that force libusb_handle_events() to return.
It's recommended to use libusb_handle_events() in a dedicated thread so your main thread will not be blocked by this call. Even though, if you need to manipulate the call of the event handler you can put the call in a while(condition) and change the condition state in your main thread.
Libusb documentation details this here.
I am using stm32f4 nucleuo board. I can transmit the audio data through usb to PC without FreeRTOS. Now I want to learn how to integrate the FreeRTOS and usb together. But I have some questions about how fundamentally threads and ISR interact with each other.
Below I have two files.
In main.c, there are two threads created.In usb_thread, I initialize usb dirver and do nothing else.
In vr_thread, it waits state == 1 and process PCM_Buffer.
/* main.c */
extern uint16_t PCM_Buffer[16];
int state = 0;
int main(void)
{
HAL_Init();
SystemClock_Config();
MX_GPIO_Init();
osThreadDef(usb_t, usb_thread, osPriorityNormal, 0, configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE);
osThreadDef(vr_t, vr_thread, osPriorityNormal, 0, configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE);
usb_thread_handle = osThreadCreate (osThread(usb_t), NULL);
usb_thread_handle = osThreadCreate (osThread(vr_t), NULL);
osKernelStart();
for (;;) {}
}
static void usb_thread(void const *argument)
{
/*Do some initialization here.*/
for (;;) {}
}
static void vr_thread(void const *argument)
{
/*Do some initialization here.*/
for (;;) {
if (state == 1) {
state = 0;
process_buffer(PCM_Buffer);
}
}
}
In app.c, USB_AUDIO_CallBack will be called by usb ISR every 1 millisecond. It transmit PCM_Buffer to PC first because it is really important, then it changes state to 1.
/* app.c */
uint16_t PCM_Buffer[16];
extern int state;
void USB_AUDIO_CallBack(void) //It will be called by usb ISR every 10^-3 second.
{
Send_Audio_to_USB((int16_t *)(PCM_Buffer), NUM_AUDIO_BUF);
state = 1;
}
Here are my questions.
1. How to find out the unit counting tick of FreeRTOS? USB_AUDIO_CallBack will be
called every 1 millisecond, how to know FreeRTOS basic tick is faster or slower
than 1 millisecond. Is FreeRTOS tick equal to systick?
2. Let's assume the process time of process_buffer is less than 1 millisecond. What I want to accomplish here is described below
hardware trigger
|
usb ISR
|
USB_AUDIO_CallBack
|
state=1
|
vr_thread process_buffer
|
state=0, then wait for hardware trigger again.
I really doubt it is the correct way to do it. Or should I use suspend() and resume()?
3. Is using extern to declare global PCM_Buffer the correct way to pass variable between threads or should I use queue in FreeRTOS?
I know these questions are trivial but I really want to understand them. Any helpful document or website is welcome. Thanks.
To convert real time to systick you can use macro pdMS_TO_TICKS(xTimeInMS).
You can define your USB_AUDIO_CallBack also as a thread (or task) or paste the code from the callback to vr_thread (as your application works on only one processor). Then inside the USB ISR you can send a notification using function vTaskNotifyGiveFromISR and receive it inside vr_thread by calling ulTaskNotifyTake. After receiving the notification you can call Send_Audio_to_USB((int16_t *)(PCM_Buffer), NUM_AUDIO_BUF);
and then process_buffer(PCM_Buffer);. It is better to bring out the code from callback to task, because the ISR handler will finish it's job faster as Send_Audio_to_USB function could run long time. You also keep things to be executed in the same order as you needed.
I think that you mean volatile instead of extern. If you want to use this buffer along different threads and ISRs you should define it as volatile, but if you will use the approach with only one task you can declare this buffer as local buffer.
On Mac OSX with Objective C and Distributed Objects (IPC API), how can a server determine if the client has closed down their application and thus the NSConnection pointer has been broken? I mean, I might be in a while loop, reading a lot of data to send back from the server to the client, and I can test for stuff if I just knew what the trick was to determine if the client has suddenly disconnected.
Add this to your server's vended object class and then check it when doing something in any kind of loop for long periods of time. Replace "servicetest" phrase in the code below with the name of your actual process. You can run your client app and then check ps -ef at command line to see what your process is, if uncertain. It'll be the one with DerivedData if running temporarily in XCode.
A little warning, though. This routine is kind of heavy and you shouldn't call it with every loop iteration. Instead, check like every 500 iterations of your while loop you might be in, for instance. You could also have a background timer that runs and checks. Or you could use rand to determine 1 in 5 odds and run it then.
Note that this routine only runs properly with Distributed Objects on the same system, as in application to application IPC, rather than Distributed Objects over a LAN.
So, when I detected that a client suddenly disconnected, I do a break on my while loop (where I was reading slow process data) and then did a pclose() on that process because there was no sense running it anymore.
/* requires these includes
#include <libproc.h>
#include <sys/sysctl.h>
#include <string>
*/
- (bool)_clientSuddenlyDisconnected;
{
int numberOfProcesses = proc_listpids(PROC_ALL_PIDS, 0, NULL, 0);
pid_t pids[1024];
bzero(pids, 1024);
proc_listpids(PROC_ALL_PIDS, 0, pids, sizeof(pids));
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfProcesses; ++i) {
if (pids[i] == 0) { continue; }
char pathBuffer[PROC_PIDPATHINFO_MAXSIZE];
bzero(pathBuffer, PROC_PIDPATHINFO_MAXSIZE);
proc_pidpath(pids[i], pathBuffer, sizeof(pathBuffer));
if (strlen(pathBuffer) > 0) {
std::string sTest(pathBuffer);
sTest = "/" + sTest + "$$$";
if (sTest.find("/servicetest$$$") != std::string::npos) {
return false;
}
}
}
return true;
}
I need to block and wake a process using SIGUSR2 and SIGUSR1 respectively. Below here's my signal handler sub routine. How do I wake a process blocked by pause?
void sig_handler(int sig) {
static int i = 1;
if(sig == SIGUSR2) {
pause();
}
else if(sig == SIGUSR1) {
/* I don't what to write here */
}
}
Also, I read somewhere pause() is not a good programming practice, is there any other means to suspend a process for some time?
See this page
In general, doing a lot of works in signals is ... tricky. Some things are not async-signal-safe, and therefore it makes robust programming there a bit difficult. In your case, pause() waits for a signal to arrive, but since you are calling it from the signal handler, it is not going to work there (I think).
As to making the process sleep and resume on signals. Look at the page I linked above. The best way is to have the signal handlers simply set flags and have the main thread (i.e. in main() or in an event loop) react to these flags. As recommended by the page, use sigsuspend when SIGUSR2 is received to pause the process until SIGURS1 is received.
It's simple. Use the 'kill' system call-
void sig_handler(int sig) {
static int i = 1;
if(sig == SIGUSR2) {
pause();
}
else if(sig == SIGUSR1) {
kill(<pid of process to wake up>, sig);
// make sure that process with pid has registered for sig
}
}