How does a context switch between two processes happen?
Is the only way to make it happen by sending some kind of interrupt to the CPU or are there other ways by which such a context switch is (usually) 'implemented'?
A process can also yield the cpu in a system service call or exception handler.
Related
I'm new to threading, so there are a few things I'm trying to grasp correctly.
I have a windows form application that uses threading to keep my UI responsive while some server shenanigans are going on.
My question is: when I quit my application, what happens to ongoing threads? Will they run to completion or will the abruptly be interrupted?
If they are interrupted, what can I do to make sure they at least don't get interrupted in such a way that would corrupt data on my server (force them to run to a safe place in the code where I know it's ok to interrupt the execution)
You will want to keep a reference of said threads, and call .Abort() on them when you want to terminate. Then you put your thread's code in a try/catch block and handle ThreadAbortException's. This will let you clean up what you are doing and terminate the thread cleanly at your own pace. In the main thread, after you called .Abort(), you just wait until the thread is no longer running (by polling the .IsAlive property of the Thread object) and close your application afterwards.
A thread needs a process to run in. The process won't be able to terminate if you don't terminate all the non-background threads you have started. Threads marked as background thread will be aborted.
So, the behavior is entirely up to your implementation. If you want to close the application, you could wait for all threads to terminate by themself, you could set an event to ask them to terminate and wait or you could just kill the threads.
The UI thread will terminate by itself because it runs a messageloop that stops when requested by the operating system, also see wikipedia and this answer.
I am working on a project using a Zynq (Picozed devboard). The application is run bare-metal, uses lwIP TCP in RAW mode and basically behaves like this:
Receive a batch of data via Ethernet, which is stored in RAM.
Process the batch of data.
Send back the processed data via Ethernet.
The problem is, I need to measure the execution time of the processing part. However, running lwIP in RAW mode forces me to call tcp_fasttmr() and tcp_slowtmr() every 250/500 ms, which makes accurate measurement pretty hard. Whenever I'm not calling the tcp_tmr() functions for some time, I start repeatedly receiving error messages via UART ("unable to alloc pbuf in recv_handler"). It seems this is called from some ISR related to error handling, but I cannot really find the exact location.
My question is, how do I suspend the network functionality so I don't need to call tcp_tmr() periodically? I tried closing the connection and disabling the interface (netif_set_down()) and disabling the timer interrupt, but it still seems to have no effect on my problem.
I don't know anything about that devboard or the microcontroller on it but you should have an ethernetif.c (lwIP port) file which should contain the processing of an Ethernet receive interrupt or similar. This should be calling the lwIP function netif->input with a packet to process.
Disabling the interface won't stop this behaviour, it will just stop the higher level processing of the packet. If you are only timing how long the execution time is for debugging, you could try disabling the Ethernet receive interrupt and stop calling tcp_tmr until you have processed the packets.
Early Cisco routers running IOS operating system enhanced their packet processing speed by doing packet switching within the interrupt handler instead in "regular" operating system process. Doing packet processing in interrupt handler ensured that context switching within operating system does not affect the packet processing. As I understand, interrupt handler is a piece of software in operating system meant for handling the interrupts. How to understand the concept of packet switching done within the interrupt handler?
use of interrupts is preferred when an event requires some immediate attention by the operating system, or a program which installed an interrupt service routine. This as opposed to polling, where software checks periodically whether a condition exists, which indicates that the event has occurred.
interrupt service routines aren't commonly meant to do a lot of work themselves. They are rather written to reach their end as quickly as possible, so that normal execution can resume. "normal execution" meaning, the location and state previous processing was interrupted when the interrupt occurred. reason is that it must be avoided that the same interrupt occurs again while its handler is still executed, or it may be ignored, or lead to incorrect results, or even worse, to software failure (crashes). So what an interrupt service routine usually does is, reading any data associated with that event and storing it in a queue, signalling that the queue experienced mutation, and setting things such that another interrupt may occur, then resume by restoring pre-interrupt context. the queued data, associated with that interrupt, can now be processed asynchronously, without risking that interrupts pile up.
The following is the procedure for executing interrupt-level switching:
Look up the memory structure to determine the next-hop address and outgoing interface.
Do an Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Layer 2 rewrite, also called MAC rewrite, which means changing the encapsulation of the packet to comply with the outgoing interface.
Put the packet into the tx ring or output queue of the outgoing interface.
Update the appropriate memory structures (reset timers in caches, update counters, and so forth).
The interrupt which is raised when a packet is received from the network interface is called the "RX interrupt". This interrupt is dismissed only when all the above steps are executed. If any of the first three steps above cannot be performed, the packet is sent to the next switching layer. If the next switching layer is process switching, the packet is put into the input queue of the incoming interface for process switching and the interrupt is dismissed. Since interrupts cannot be interrupted by interrupts of the same level and all interfaces raise interrupts of the same level, no other packet can be handled until the current RX interrupt is dismissed.
Different interrupt switching paths can be organized in a hierarchy, from the one providing the fastest lookup to the one providing the slowest lookup. The last resort used for handling packets is always process switching. Not all interfaces and packet types are supported in every interrupt switching path. Generally, only those that require examination and changes limited to the packet header can be interrupt-switched. If the packet payload needs to be examined before forwarding, interrupt switching is not possible. More specific constraints may exist for some interrupt switching paths. Also, if the Layer 2 connection over the outgoing interface must be reliable (that is, it includes support for retransmission), the packet cannot be handled at interrupt level.
The following are examples of packets that cannot be interrupt-switched:
Traffic directed to the router (routing protocol traffic, Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), Telnet, Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP), ping, and so on). Management traffic can be sourced and directed to the router. They have specific task-related processes.
OSI Layer 2 connection-oriented encapsulations (for example, X.25). Some tasks are too complex to be coded in the interrupt-switching path because there are too many instructions to run, or timers and windows are required. Some examples are features such as encryption, Local Area Transport (LAT) translation, and Data-Link Switching Plus (DLSW+).
More here: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ios-nx-os-software/ios-software-releases-121-mainline/12809-tuning.html
I have this kernel code where I disable the interrupt to make this lock acquire operation atomic, but if u see the last else condition i.e. when lock is not available thread goes to sleep and interrupts are enable only after thread comes back from sleep. My question is so interrupts are disabled for whole OS until this thread comes out of sleep?
void Lock::Acquire()
{
IntStatus oldLevel = interrupt->SetLevel(IntOff); // Disabling the interrups to make the following statements atomic
if(lockOwnerThread == currentThread) //Checking if the requesting thread already owns lock
{
//printf("SM:error:%s already owns the lock\n",currentThread->getName());
DEBUG('z', "SM:error:%s already owns the lock\n",currentThread->getName());
(void) interrupt->SetLevel(oldLevel);
return;
}
if(lockOwnerThread==NULL)
{
lockOwnerThread = currentThread; // Lock owner ship is given to current thread
DEBUG('z', "SM:The ownership of the lock %s is given to %s \n",name,currentThread->getName());
}
else
{
DEBUG('z', "SM:Adding thread %s to request queue and putting it to sleep\n",currentThread->getName());
queueForLock->Append((void *)currentThread); // Lock is busy so add the thread to queue;
currentThread->Sleep(); // And go to sleep
}
(void) interrupt->SetLevel(oldLevel); // Enable the interrupts
}
I don't know the NACHOS and I would not make any assumptions on my own. So you have to test it.
The idea is simple. If this interrupt enable/disable functionality is local to the current process context then the following should happen when you call Sleep():
the process is marked as not-running, i.e. it is excluded from the list of processes the scheduler will consider to give a CPU time. Then the Sleep() function enforces the scheduler to do it's regular work - to find a process to run. If the list of running processes is not empty, the scheduler picks up a next available process and makes a context switch to this process. After this the state of interrupt management is restored from this new context.
If there are no processes to run then scheduler enters the Idle loop state and usually enables the interrupts. While the scheduler is in Idle loop it continues to poll the queue of the running processes until it get something to schedule.
Your process will get the control when it will be marked as running again. This could happen if some other process calls WakeUp() (or a like, as I mentioned the API is unknown to me)
When the scheduler will pick up your process to switch to it performs the usual (for your system) context switch that has the interrupts enabled flag set to false, so the execution continues at statement after the Sleep() call with interrupts disabled.
If the assumptions above are incorrect and the interrupts enabled flag is global, then there are two possibilities: either the system hangs as it can't serve the interrupts, or it has some workaround for such a situations.
So, you need to try. The best way is to read the kernel sources of course, if you have the access.))
in my Cocoa project, I communicate with a device connected to a serial port. Now, I am waiting for the serial device to send a particular message of some bytes. For the read operation (and the reaction for once the desired message has been received), I created a new thread. On user request, I want to be able to cancel the thread.
As Apple suggests in the docs, I added a flag to the thread dictionary, periodically check if the flag has been set and if so, call [NSThread exit]. This works fine.
Now, the thread may be stuck waiting for the serial device to finally send the 12 byte message. The read call looks like this:
numBytes = read(fileDescriptor, buffer, 12);
Once the thread starts reading from the device, but no data comes in, I can set the flag to tell the thread to finish, but the thread is not going to read the flag unless it finally received at least 12 bytes of data and continues processing.
Is there a way to kill a thread that currently performs a read operation on a serial device?
Edit for clarification:
I do not insist in creating a separate thread for the I/O operations with the serial device. If there is a way to encapsulate the operations such that I am able to "kill" them if the user presses a cancel button, I am perfectly happy.
I am developing a Cocoa application for desktop Mac OS X, so no restrictions regarding mobile devices and their capabilities apply.
A workaround would be to make the read function return immediately if there are no bytes to read. How can I do this?
Use select or poll with a timeout to detect when the descriptor is ready for reading.
Set the timeout to (say) half a second and call it in a loop while checking to see if your thread should exit.
Asynchronous thread cancellation is almost always a bad idea. Try to stick with event-driven interfaces (and, if necessary, timeouts).
This is exactly what the pthread_cancel interface was designed for. You'll want to wrap the block with read in pthread_cleanup_push and pthread_cleanup_pop in order that you can safely clean up if the thread is cancelled, and also disable cancellation (with pthread_setcancelstate) in other code that runs in this thread that you don't want to be cancellable. This can be a pain if proper cleanup would involve multiple call frames; it essentially forces you to use pthread_cleanup_push at every call level and structure your thread code like C++ or Java with try/catch style exception handling.
An alternative approach would be to install a signal handler for an otherwise-unused signal (like SIGUSR1 or one of the realtime signals) without the SA_RESTART flag, so that it interrupts syscalls with EINTR. The signal handler itself can be a complete no-op; the only purpose of it is to interrupt things. Then you can use pthread_kill to interrupt the read (or any other syscall) in a particular thread. This has the advantage that you don't have to switch your code to using C++/Java-type idioms. You can handle the EINTR error by checking a flag (indicating whether the thread was requested to abort) and resume the read if the flag is not set, or return an error code that causes the caller to clean up and eventually pthread_exit.
If you do use interrupting signal handlers, make sure all your syscalls that can return EINTR are wrapped in loops that retry (or check the abort flag and optionally retry) on EINTR. Otherwise things can break badly.