I want to know how VIC can handle the external interrupts efficiently
A little background (you tagged "arm7" so presumably this question isn't about the Cortex NVIC, etc..)
Initially, ARM processors supported 2 types of interrupts: normal interrupts (IRQ) and Fast Interrupts (FIQ). Each peripheral which could interrupt the CPU would either trigger an IRQ or a FIQ. IRQ has a single vector, FIQ has a single vector.
Sometimes the mapping from peripheral to IRQ/FIQ is done in hardware, sometimes it's configurable. But the point is that as soon as you have >2 peripheral interrupts, they have to share an interrupt vector. In other words, if you have 3 interrupt sources, you are guaranteed at least one of IRQ or FIQ will be used by multiple devices. This implies that when you take the interrupt, you have to "poll" (usually hardware registers) to find out "why am I here? who interrupted me?"
The whole idea of the VIC is that each interrupt has its own unique vector, so that when you vector to that interrupt slot, you know exactly who is interrupting you. No polling "OK, who interrupted me?"
There is a lot more information about the ARM VIC (and its many variants) at ARM's site, including configuration info, register definitions, nested/prioritized interrupts, etc. but your question asked specifically about how the VIC handles interrupts efficiently. Describing every detail of its features is way outside the scope of this question.
(I interpreted "efficiently" as "with as little polling/interrogating as possible". Note that prioritized interrupts, also supported by the VIC, reduce the latency of high-priority interrupts, and that might also be considered "more efficient", although I don't really put it in the same category as not having to poll "who interrupted me?")
More info on the Primecell VIC can be found here at ARM's site.
Related
Semaphore disables interrupts and so will this cause other operations like receiving data on SPI to get corrupt?
Disabling interrupts cannot corrupt the data on the hardware interface.
The problem is if the data is received by the hardware peripheral and then the it raises an interrupt to have the processor collect the data then this will be delayed. If it is delayed for too long then potentially more data will have been received. Depending on the peripheral, either the new data or the old data will have to be discarded. Either way stream of data will be incomplete.
In most cases it is difficult to predict or test how long it is safe to disable interrupts for, so if possible it is best to avoid turning interrupts off.
If the peripheral includes a FIFO buffer, then the length of time that it is safe to disable interrupts for may be increased (although still difficult to predict).
Most modern microcontrollers have many ways to avoid disabling interrupts:
A better approach is to have the peripheral transfer the data to memory with DMA, so no interrupt is required at all.
Most modern processor cores provide ways to implement a semaphore do not even need to disable interrupts.
There's no standard way of implementing a semaphore. To disable all interrupts on the MCU is one way to do it, but it's a very poor amateur way of doing so. Because in more complex applications with multiple interrupts, this will make all real-time considerations and calculations a nightmare.
It creates subtle but severe bugs. Particularly when some quack has done so from deep inside some driver code. You import the driver into your project and suddenly previously working code breaks. In particular, be very careful about using various libs provided by silicon vendors - they are often of very poor quality.
There are better ways to do it, including:
Ensuring atomic access of shared variables, which can only be done with inline assembler or C11 _Atomic if supported.
Disabling one specific interrupt for a specific hardware peripheral, if it is possible to do do given the real-time considerations. Then this should be handled by the driver for that hardware peripheral in the form of setter/getter functions.
Use a "poor man's semaphore" in the form of a plain flag variable, by relying on the interrupt mechanism of the MCU blocking all other interrupts while the ISR is executing. Example.
Interrupts can be enabled for a specific pin(s) on a digital I/O port, correct? How would the ISR determine which pin caused the interrupt?
Because the vector table has only one slot for the Port1 ISR. So the same ISR function gets called no matter which input pin on Port1 needs attention unless I'm wrong...
As other people have suggested in comments this can be MCU dependent, but for ARM(The core behind MSP432) generally the answer is it doesnt know, it looks for it.
ARM has a vectored interrupt system, which means that every source has its own vector of interrupt, so CPU can easily find out which source is triggering thr interrupt. so far so good.
but then it happens that a device can trigger multiple interrupts, like GPIO as you said, in this case, CPU knows that which port has triggered interrupt so fires it's ISR but then it is ISR responsibility to poll device registers to figure out exact interrupt source, there are many of this peripherals with multiple interrupt, timers, DMAs just to name a few.
This is exactly why normally peripherals have an interrupt enable bit, that lets them trigger interrupts, but they also have bit masks that controls what exactly can trigger that interrupt internally,
Also have a look at this link for an in action example, specially at their ISR that does exactly the same as described above
In a typical MCU, there are hundreds, or at a stretch even thousands of potential interrupt sources. Depending on the application, only some will be important, and even fewer will be genuinely timing critical.
For a GPIO port, you typically enable only the pins which are interesting to generate an interrupt. If you can arrange only one pin of a port to be generating the interrupt, the job is done, your handler for that port can do the work, safely knowing that it will only be called when the right pin is active.
When you care about the cause within a single peripheral, and don't have the luxury of individually vectored handlers, you need to fall back on the 'non vectored' approach, and check the status registers before working out which eventual handler function needs to be called.
Interestingly, you can't work out which pin caused the interrupt - all you can see is which pins are still active once you get round to polling the status register. If you care about the phasing between two pulses, you may not be able to achieve this discrimination within a single GPIO unless there is dedicated hardware support. Even multiple exception vectors wouldn't help, unless you can be sure that the first exception is always taken before the second pin could become set.
On some architectures (e.g. x86) the Interrupt Vector Table (IVT) is indeed what it says on the tin: a table of vectors, aka pointers. Each vector holds the address of an Interrupt Service Routine (ISR). When an Interrupt Request (IRQ) occurs, the CPU saves some context and loads the vector into the PC register, thus jumping to the ISR. so far so good.
But on some other architectures (e.g. ARM) the IVT contains executable code, not pointers. When an IRQ occurs, the CPU saves some context and executes the vector. But there is no space in between these "vectors", so there is no room for storing the ISR there. Thus each "vector instruction" typically just jumps to the proper ISR somewhere else in memory.
My question is: what are the advantages of the latter approach ?
I would kinda understand if the ISRs themselves had fixed well-known addresses, and were spaced out so that reasonnable IRSs would fit in-place. Then we would save one indirection level, though at the expense of some fragmentation. But this "compact jump table" approach seems to have no advantage at all. What did I miss ?
Some of the reasons, but probably not all of them (I'm pretty much self educated in these matters):
You can have fall through (one exception does nothing, and just goes to the next in the table)
The FIQ interrupt (Fast Interrupt Requests) is the last in the table, and as the name suggest, it's used for devices that need immediate and low latency processing.
It means you can just put that ISR in there (no jumping), and process it as fast as possible. Also, the way FIQ was thought with it's dedicated registers, it allows for optimal implementation of FIQ handlers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_interrupt_request
I think it has do with simplifying the processor's hardware.
If you have machine instructions (jump instructions) in the vector interrupt table, the only extra thing the processor has to do when it has to jump to an interrupt handler is to load the address of the corresponding interrupt vector in the PC.
Whereas, if you have addresses in the interrupt vector table, the processor must be able to read the interruption handler start address from memory, and then jump to it.
The extra hardware required to read from memory and writing to a register is more complex than the required to just writing to a register.
I should first share all what I know - and that is complete chaos. There are several different questions on the topic, so please don't get irritated :).
1) To find an ISR, CPU is provided with a interrupt number. In x86 machines (286/386 and above) there is a IVT with ISRs in it; each entry of 4 bytes in size. So we need to multiply interrupt number by 4 to find the ISR. So first bunch of questions is - I am completely confused in mechanism of CPU receiving the interrupt. To raise an interrupt, firstly device shall probe for IRQ - then what ? The interrupt number travels "on IRQ" towards CPU? I also read something like device putting ISR address on data bus ; whats that then ? What is the concept of devices overriding the ISR. Can somebody tell me few example devices where CPU polls for interrupts? And where does it finds ISR for them ?
2) If two devices share an IRQ (which is very much possible), how does CPU differs amongst them ? What if both devices raise an interrupt of same priority simultaneously. I got to know there will be masking of same type and low priority interrupts - but how this communication happens between CPU and device controller? I studied the role of PIC and APIC for this problem, but could not understand.
Thanks for reading.
Thank you very much for answering.
CPUs don't poll for interrupts, at least not in a software sense. With respect to software, interrupts are asynchronous events.
What happens is that hardware within the CPU recognizes the interrupt request, which is an electrical input on an interrupt line, and in response, sets aside the normal execution of events to respond to the interrupt. In most modern CPUs, what happens next is determined by a hardware handshake particular to the type of CPU, but most of them receive a number of some kind from the interrupting device. That number can be 8 bits or 32 or whatever, depending on the design of the CPU. The CPU then uses this interrupt number to index into the interrupt vector table, to find an address to begin execution of the interrupt service routine. Once that address is determined, (and the current execution context is safely saved to the stack) the CPU begins executing the ISR.
When two devices share an interrupt request line, they can cause different ISRs to run by returning a different interrupt number during that handshaking process. If you have enough vector numbers available, each interrupting device can use its own interrupt vector.
But two devices can even share an interrupt request line and an interrupt vector, provided that the shared ISR is clever enough to go back to all the possible sources of the given interrupt, and check status registers to see which device requested service.
A little more detail
Suppose you have a system composed of a CPU, and interrupt controller, and an interrupting device. In the old days, these would have been separate physical devices but now all three might even reside in the same chip, but all the signals are still there inside the ceramic case. I'm going to use a powerPC (PPC) CPU with an integrated interrupt controller, connected to a device on a PCI bus, as an example that should serve nicely.
Let's say the device is a serial port that's transmitting some data. A typical serial port driver will load bunch of data into the device's FIFO, and the CPU can do regular work while the device does its thing. Typically these devices can be configured to generate an interrupt request when the device is running low on data to transmit, so that the device driver can come back and feed more into it.
The hardware logic in the device will expect a PCI bus interrupt acknowledge, at which point, a couple of things can happen. Some devices use 'autovectoring', which means that they rely on the interrupt controller to see to it that the correct service routine gets selected. Others will have a register, which the device driver will pre-program, that contains an interrupt vector that the device will place on the data bus in response to the interrupt acknowledge, for the interrupt controller to pick up.
A PCI bus has only four interrupt request lines, so our serial device will have to assert one of those. (It doesn't matter which at the moment, it's usually somewhat slot dependent..) Next in line is the interrupt controller (e.g. PIC/APIC), that will decide whether to acknowledge the interrupt based on mask bits that have been set in its own registers. Assuming it acknowledges the interrupt, it either then obtains the vector from the interrupting device (via the data bus lines), or may if so programmed use a 'canned' value provided by the APIC's own device driver. So far, the CPU has been blissfully unaware of all these goings-on, but that's about to change.
Now it's time for the interrupt controller to get the attention of the CPU core. The CPU will have its own interrupt mask bit(s) that may cause it to just ignore the request from the PIC. Assuming that the CPU is ready to take interrupts, it's now time for the real action to start. The current instruction usually has to be retired before the ISR can begin, so with pipelined processors this is a little complicated, but suffice it to say that at some point in the instruction stream, the processor context is saved off to the stack and the hardware-determined ISR takes over.
Some CPU cores have multiple request lines, and can start the process of narrowing down which ISR runs via hardware logic that jumps the CPU instruction pointer to one of a handful of top level handlers. The old 68K, and possibly others did it that way. The powerPC (and I believe, the x86) have a single interrupt request input. The x86 itself behaves a bit like a PIC, and can obtain a vector from the external PIC(s), but the powerPC just jumps to a fixed address, 0x00000500.
In the PPC, the code at 0x0500 is probably just going to immediately jump out to somewhere in memory where there's room enough for some serious decision making code, but it's still the interrupt service routine. That routine will first go to the PIC and obtain the vector, and also ask the PIC to stop asserting the interrupt request into the CPU core. Once the vector is known, the top level ISR can case out to a more specific handler that will service all the devices known to be using that vector. The vector specific handler then walks down the list of devices assigned to that vector, checking interrupt status bits in those devices, to see which ones need service.
When a device, like the hypothetical serial port, is found wanting service, the ISR for that device takes appropriate actions, for example, loading the next FIFO's worth of data out of an operating system buffer into the port's transmit FIFO. Some devices will automatically drop their interrupt request in response to being accessed, for example, writing a byte into the transmit FIFO might cause the serial port device to de-assert the request line. Other devices will require a special control register bit to be toggled, set, cleared, what-have-you, in order to drop the request. There are zillions of different I/O devices and no two of them ever seem to do it the same way, so it's hard to generalize, but that's usually the way of it.
Now, obviously there's more to say - what about interrupt priorities? what happens in a multi-core processor? What about nested interrupt controllers? But I've burned enough space on the server. Hope any of this helps.
I Came over this Question like after 3 years.. Hope I Can help ;)
The Intel 8259A or simply the "PIC" has 8 pins ,IRQ0-IRQ7, every pin connects to a single device..
Lets suppose that u pressed a button on the keyboard.. the voltage of the IRQ1 pin, which is connected to the KBD, is High.. so after the CPU gets interrupted, acknowledge the Interrupt bla bla bla... the PIC does simply add 8 to the number of the IRQ line so IRQ1 means 1+8 which means 9
SO the CPU sets its CS and IP on the 9th entry in the vector table.. and because the IVT is an array of longs it just multiply the number of cells by 4 ;)
CPU.CS=IVT[9].CS
CPU.IP=IVT[9].IP
the ESR deals with the device through the I/O ports ;)
Sorry for my bad english .. am an Arab though :)
Maybe the question should be, are external interrupts even vectored on the PowerPC at all? I've been looking at http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/eserver/library/es-archguide-v2.html, 'book 3', trying to figure out how the processor locates the appropriate interrupt service routine in response to an external interrupt. It seems to suggest that when the PPC recognizes an external interrupt, it just jumps execution to 0x0000_0500.
I may be laboring under a misconception about how the PPC works. With x86, the processor responds to interrupt requests with an interrupt acknowledge cycle, and obtains a 'vector' directly from the device. The vector (really an index) then allows the cpu to pick an appropriate handler routine from its interrupt vector table. Most importantly, this acknowledge/vector fetch is a hardware, bus-protocol thing, nobody has to write any code to make it happen. The only code that needs writing (read, software) is the ISRs themselves.
Does the PPC do something similar? Would there be a table of vectors at 0x500? Or does it do something radically different, and offload the functionality of getting the device's vector to an external interrupt controller? I suppose it could just jump to code at 0x500, where actual software would then interrogate the (hypothetical?) interrupt controller to get the vector .. and then use it in a jump-table/what-have-you, but I can't find documentation to verify this is the case, one way or another.
The PowerPC CPU has no concept of an interrupt vector table, and only provides a single interrupt pin and interrupt vector.