As we know we write Embedded C programming, for task management, memory management, ISR, File system and all.
I would like to know if some task or process is running and at the same time an interrupt occurred, then how SW or process or system comes to know that, the interrupt has occurred? and pauses the current task execution and starts serving ISR.
Suppose if I will write the below code like;
// Dummy Code
void main()
{
for(;;)
printf("\n forever");
}
// Dummy code for ISR for understanding
void ISR()
{
printf("\n Interrupt occurred");
}
In this above code if an external interrupt(ISR) occurs, then how main() comes to know that the interrupt occurred? So that it would start serving ISR first?
main doesn't know. You have to execute some-system dependent function in your setup code (maybe in main) that registers the interrupt handler with the hardware interrupt routine/vector, etc.
Whether that interrupt code can execute a C function directly varies quite a lot; runtime conventions for interrupt procedures don't always follow runtime conventions for application code. Usually there's some indirection involved in getting a signal from the interrupt routine to your C code.
your query: I understood your answer. But I wanted to know when Interrupt occurs how the current task execution gets stopped/paused and the ISR starts executing?
well Rashmi to answer your query read below,
when microcontroller detects interrupt, it stops exucution of the program after executing current instruction. Then it pushes PC(program counter) on to stack and loads PC with the vector location of that inerrupt hence, program flow is directed to interrrupt service routine. On completion of ISR the microcontroller again pops the stored program counter from stack and loads it on to PC hence, program execution again resumes from next location it was stopped.
does that replied to your query?
It depends on your target.
For example the ATMEL mega family uses a pre-processor directive to register the ISR with an interrupt vector. When an interrupt occurs the corrosponding interrupt flag is raised in the relevant status register. If the global interrupt flag is raised the program counter is stored on the stack before the ISR is called. This all happens in hardware and the main function knows nothing about it.
In order to allow main to know if an interrupt has occurred you need to implement a shared data resource between the interrupt routine and your main function and all the rules from RTOS programming apply here. This means that as the ISR may be executed at any time it as not safe to read from a shared resource from main without disabling interrupts first.
On an ATMEL target this could look like:
volatile int shared;
int main() {
char status_register;
int buffer;
while(1) {
status_register = SREG;
CLI();
buffer = shared;
SREG = status_register;
// perform some action on the shared resource here.
}
return 0;
}
void ISR(void) {
// update shared resource here.
}
Please note that the ISR is not added to the vector table here. Check your compiler documentation for instructions on how to do that.
Also, an important thing to remember is that ISRs should be very short and very fast to execute.
On most embedded systems the hardware has some specific memory address that the instruction pointer will move to when a hardware condition indicates an interrupt is required.
When the instruction pointer is at this specific location it will then begin to execute the code there.
On a lot of systems the programmer will place only an address of the ISR at this location so that when the interrupt occurs and the instruction pointer moves to the specific location it will then jump to the ISR
try doing a Google search on "interrupt vectoring"
An interrupt handling is transparent for the running program. The processor branchs automatically to a previously configured address, depending on the event, and this address being the corresponding ISR function. When returning from the interrupt, a special instruction restores the interrupted program.
Actually, most of the time you won't ever want that a program interrupted know it has been interrupted. If you need to know such info, the program should call a driver function instead.
interrupts are a hardware thing not a software thing. When the interrupt signal hits the processor the processor (generally) completes the current instruction. In some way shape or form preserves the state (so it can get back to where it was) and in some way shape or form starts executing the interrupt service routine. The isr is generally not C code at least the entry point is usually special as the processor does not conform to the calling convention for the compiler. The ISR might call C code, but you end up with the mistakes that you made, making calls like printf that should not be in an ISR. hard once in C to keep from trying to write general C code in an isr, rather than the typical get in and get out type of thing.
Ideally your application layer code should never know the interrupt happened, there should be no (hardware based) residuals affecting your program. You may choose to leave something for the application to see like a counter or other shared data which you need to mark as volatile so the application and isr can share it. this is not uncommon to have the isr simply flag that an interrupt happened and the application polls that flag/counter/variable and the handling happens primarily in the application not isr. This way the application can make whatever system calls it wants. So long as the overall bandwidth or performance is met this can and does work as a solution.
Software doesnt recognize the interrupt to be specific, it is microprocessor (INTC) or microcontrollers JOB.
Interrupt routine call is just like normal function call for Main(), the only difference is that main dont know when that routine will be called.
And every interrupt has specific priority and vector address. Once the interrput is received (either software or hardware), depending on interrupt priority, mask values and program flow is diverted to specific vector location associated with that interrupt.
hope it helps.
Related
I am using FreeRTOS on an ARM Cortex A9 CPU und I'm desperately trying to find out if it is possible to determin if the processor is executing a normal thread or an interrupt service routine. It is implemented in V7-a architecture.
I found some promising reference hinting the ICSR register (-> VECTACTIVE bits), but this only exist in the cortex M family. Is there a comparable register in the A family as well? I tried to read out the processor modes in the current processor status register (CPSR), but when read during an ISR I saw that the mode bits indicate supervisor mode rather than IRQ or FIQ mode.
Looks a lot like there is no way to determine in which state the processor is, but I wanted to ask anyway, maybe I missed something...
The processor has a pl390 General Interrupt Controller. Maybe it is possible to determine the if an interrupt has been triggered by reading some of it's registers?
If anybody can give me a clue I would be very greatfull!
Edit1:
The IRQ Handler of FreeRTOS switches the processor to Superviser mode:
And subsequently switches back to system mode:
Can I just check if the processor is in supervisor mode and assume that this means that the execution takes place in an ISR, or are there other situations where the kernel may switches to supervisor mode, without being in an ISR?
Edit2:
On request I'll add an overal background description of the solution that I want to achieve in the first place, by solving the problem of knowing the current execution context.
I'm writing a set of libraries for the CortexA9 and FreeRTOS that will access periphery. Amongst others I want to implement a library for the available HW timer from the processor's periphery.
In order to secure the access to the HW and to avoid multiple tasks trying to access the HW resource simultaneously I added Mutex Semaphores to the timer library implementation. The first thing the lib function does on call is to try to gain the Mutex. If it fails the function returns an error, otherwise it continouses its execution.
Lets focus on the function that starts the timer:
static ret_val_e TmrStart(tmr_ctrl_t * pCtrl)
{
ret_val_e retVal = RET_ERR_DEF;
BaseType_t retVal_os = pdFAIL;
XTtcPs * pHwTmrInstance = (XTtcPs *) pCtrl->pHwTmrInstance;
//Check status of driver
if(pCtrl == NULL)
{
return RET_ERR_TMR_CTRL_REF;
}else if(!pCtrl->bInitialized )
{
return RET_ERR_TMR_UNINITIALIZED;
}else
{
retVal_os = xSemaphoreTake(pCtrl->osSemMux_Tmr, INSTANCE_BUSY_ACCESS_DELAY_TICKS);
if(retVal_os != pdPASS)
{
return RET_ERR_OS_SEM_MUX;
}
}
//This function starts the timer
XTtcPs_Start(pHwTmrInstance);
(...)
Sometimes it can be helpful to start the timer directly inside an ISR. The problem that appears is that while the rest of function would support it, the SemaphoreTake() call MUST be changed to SemaphoreTakeFromISR() - moreover no wait ticks are supported when called from ISR in order to avoid a blocking ISR.
In order to achieve code that is suitable for both execution modes (thread mode and IRQ mode) we would need to change the function to first check the execution state and based on that invokes either SemaphoreTake() or SemaphoreTakeFromISR() before proceeding to access the HW.
That's the context of my question. As mentioned in the comments I do not want to implement this by adding a parameter that must be supplied by the user on every call which tells the function if it's been called from a thread or an ISR, as I want to keep the API as slim as possible.
I could take FreeRTOS approch and implement a copy of the TmrStart() function with the name TmrStartFromISR() which contains the the ISR specific calls to FreeRTOS's system resources. But I rather avoid that either as duplicating all my functions makes the code overall harder to maintain.
So determining the execution state by reading out some processor registers would be the only way that I can think of. But apparently the A9 does not supply this information easily unfortunately, unlike the M3 for example.
Another approch that just came to my mind could be to set a global variable in the assembler code of FreeRTOS that handles exeptions. In the portSAVE_CONTEXT it could be set and in the portRESTORE_CONTEXT it could be reset.
The downside of this solution is that the library then would not work with the official A9 port of FreeRTOS which does not sound good either. Moreover you could get problems with race conditions if the variable is changed right after it has been checked by the lib function, but I guess this would also be a problem when reading the state from a processor registers directly... Probably one would need to enclose this check in a critical section that prevents interrupts for a short period of time.
If somebody sees some other solutions that I did not think of please do not hesitate to bring them up.
Also please feel free to discuss the solutions I brought up so far.
I'd just like to find the best way to do it.
Thanks!
On a Cortex-A processor, when an interrupt handler is triggered, the processor enters IRQ mode, with interrupts disabled. This is reflected in the state field of CPSR. IRQ mode is not suitable to receive nested interrupts, because if a second interrupt happened, the return address for the first interrupt would be overwritten. So, if an interrupt handler ever needs to re-enable interrupts, it must switch to supervisor mode first.
Generally, one of the first thing that an operating system's interrupt handler does is to switch to supervisor mode. By the time the code reaches a particular driver, the processor is in supervisor mode. So the behavior you're observing is perfectly normal.
A FreeRTOS interrupt handler is a C function. It runs with interrupts enabled, in supervisor mode. If you want to know whether your code is running in the context of an interrupt handler, never call the interrupt handler function directly, and when it calls auxiliary functions that care, pass a variable that indicates who the caller is.
void code_that_wants_to_know_who_called_it(int context) {
if (context != 0)
// called from an interrupt handler
else
// called from outside an interrupt handler
}
void my_handler1(void) {
code_that_wants_to_know_who_called_it(1);
}
void my_handler2(void) {
code_that_wants_to_know_who_called_it(1);
}
int main(void) {
Install_Interrupt(EVENT1, my_handler1);
Install_Interrupt(EVENT2, my_handler1);
code_that_wants_to_know_who_called_it(0);
}
In external interrupt function, I want to reset by calling main function. But afterwards, if I have a new interrupt trigger, MCU thinks that It's handling in interrupt function and It doesn't call interrupt function again. What is my solution? (in my project, I'm not allowed to call soft Reset function)
Calling main() in any event is a bad idea, calling it from an interrupt handler is a really bad idea as you have discovered.
What you really need is to modify the stack and link-register so that when the interrupt context exits,, it "returns" to main(), rather than from whence it came. That is a non-trivial task, probably requiring some assembler code or compiler intrinsics.
You have to realise that the hardware will not have been restored to its reset state; you will probably need at least to disable all interrupts to prevent them occurring while the system is re-initialising.
Moreover the standard library will not be reinitialised if you jump to main(); rather than the reset vector. In particular, any currently allocated dynamic memory will instantly leak away and become unusable. In fact all of the C run-time environment initialisation will be skipped - leaving amongst for example static and global data in its last state rather than applying correct initialisation.
In short it is dangerous, error-prone, target specific, and fundamentally poor practice. Most of what you would have to do to make it work is already done in the start-up code that is executed before main() is called, so it would be far simpler to invoke that. The difference between that and forcing a true reset (via the watchdog or AICR) is that the on-chip peripheral state remains untouched (apart from any initialisation explicitly done in the start-up). In my experience, if you are using a more complex peripheral such as USB, safely restarting the system without a true reset is difficult to achieve safely (or at least it is difficult to determine how to do it safely) and hardly worth the effort.
Reset by calling main() is wrong. There is code in front of main inserted by the linker and C-runtime that you will skip by such soft-reset.
Instead, call NVIC_SystemReset() or enable the IWDG and while(1){} to reset.
The HAL should have example files for the watchdog timer.
SRAM is maintained. Any value not initialized by the linker script will still be there.
Calling Main() from any point of your code is a wrong idea if you are not resetting the stack and setting the initial values.
There is always a initialization function ( that actually calls Main()) which is inside an interrupt vector, usually this function can be triggered by calling the function NVIC_SystemReset(void) , be sure than you enable this interrupt so it can be software triggered.
As far as I know, when get inside and interrupt code, other interruptions are inhibit, I am thinking on two different options:
Enable the interruptions inside the interruption and call the function NVIC_SystemReset(void)
Modify the stack and push the direction of the function NVIC_SystemReset(void) so when you go out of the interruption it could be executed.
I attended a lecture on FreeRtos and Cortex M where the instructor advised that if ISR safe version of API is not used from ISR it can lead to Usage fault exception in Cortex M processors.This would happen because this can involve going from interrupt context(interrupt handler) to task context(thread handler)
My question is why this task switch would be considered illegal and what would be the repercussions of such a switch?
On a Cortex-M (some of) the current context will be stored on stack in use before the interrupt (on interrupt entry), so if you were in a task and it was interrupted some of the current context would be stored on the task stack (via the PSP). The interrupt itself always runs on the MSP. If the interrupt does not return to the task which it interrupted then the interrupted task will have a messed up stack (as it restores the stored context on exit) as well as trying to restore an incorrect context for the task which was switched to.
On a context switch(which happens in an interrupt) again some of the context is automatically stored on the task stack, but the OS also stores the rest of the context on the task stack as well. When it does the switch and exits the interrupt, the OS restores the context it stored itself for the task and then the rest of the context is automatically restored by exiting the interrupt. This works as it is ensured that the stack is left in the correct format. Look at interrupt entry / exit in the Cortex-M4 Generic User Guide.
Not all processors work like this.
This answer is generic and not FreeRTOS nor Cortex-M specific - it applies to any typical RTOS on any platform:
RTOS API calls that cause the scheduler to run cannot be called from the interrupt service routine. For example, if you give a semaphore, normally the scheduler runs to switch to any task pending on that semaphore; this is inappropriate in an ISR, where the scheduler must run once when the interrupt context exits; obviously you do not want a context switch before the interrupt has completed and there may be other API calls or preemption by higher priority interrupts that cause a different task to become runable; making that assessment only once when the context switch will occur maintains deterministic behaviour.
The ISR specific versions of functions do not invoke the scheduler immediately; instead they set a flag to indicate that the scheduler must run on exit from the interrupt context.
Typically an ISR that makes RTOS API calls must have a prologue and epilogue; specific enter/exit interrupt calls or macros. This prologue, increments a counter that is decremented in the epilogue; if the counter is zero and the schedule flag is set, the scheduler will run. The counter is to prevent the scheduler from running on exit from a nested interrupt. This ensures that the scheduler only runs once on exit form the lowest priority pending interrupt.
Whether or why a "uasge fault" would occur is a FreeRTOS specific implementation detail, and largely academic. An RTOS could equally trap the usage of a non-ISR safe call in an ISR and run a more specific error handler, if it does not bother to do so, then the resulting behaviour might trigger a usage fault; it seems a somewhat crude mechanism to rely on; Usage Fault is a very broad trap and could happen for a number of reasons:
Usage Fault: detects execution of undefined instructions, unaligned
memory access for load/store multiple. When enabled, divide-by-zero
and other unaligned memory accesses are also detected.
Some RTOS do not have ISR specific functions, instead the API calls that cause scheduling detect internally the ISR context and behave differently in that context - this is simpler and safer for the programmer, but carries a small overhead to test the context on every such call. An API that handles ISR safety internally also means that calling functions that may themselves make OS API calls is simpler since those functions themselves need not be ISR specific.
Usually when interrupt occurs, program returns to the line from where interrupt is generated.
I want to run the program from new line after ISR routine is completed, i.e. I don't want it to go back from where interrupt is generated.
would I have to change IP stored in SP Or what else?
thanks
PC(Program Counter)commonly called the instruction pointer (IP) in Intel x86 will store the next instruction address. you need to change PC to the Newline at End of Interrupt routinue.
you can Also increment Pc VAlue which is store in stack at the end of Interrupt routine, then would be stored in the PC.
Your ISR has no idea of the point of execution of what it has interrupted and no clue as to what is stored on the stack of what it has interrupted. Just 'jumping' to another 'line', without a stack-cleanup operation, (which is not possible 'cos you don't know what's on it), will generate UB, (probably UB erring on the AV/segFault side).
The only way I know of to achieve something like what seem to want is to swap to a different stack - signal a semaphore/event upon which a thread is waiting and request an OS scheduler run on ISR exit. The newly-ready thread may well then run immediately after the ISR completes, (depending on loading/priorities etc), maybe even preempting the thread that was interrupted and so 'run the program from new line', sort-of.. :)
Can someone please explain to me what happens inside an interrupt service routine (although it depends upon specific routine, a general explanation is enough)? This always used be a black box for me.
There is a good wikipedia page on interrupt handlers.
"An interrupt handler, also known as an interrupt service routine (ISR), is a callback subroutine in an operating system or device driver whose execution is triggered by the reception of an interrupt. Interrupt handlers have a multitude of functions, which vary based on the reason the interrupt was generated and the speed at which the Interrupt Handler completes its task."
Basically when a piece of hardware (a hardware interrupt) or some OS task (software interrupt) needs to run it triggers an interrupt. If these interrupts aren't masked (ignored) the OS will stop what it's doing and call some special code to handle this new event.
One good example is reading from a hard drive. The drive is slow and you don't want your OS to wait for the data to come back; you want the OS to go and do other things. So you set up the system so that when the disk has the data requested, it raises an interrupt. In the interrupt service routine for the disk the CPU will take the data that is now ready and will return it to the requester.
ISRs often need to happen quickly as the hardware can have a limited buffer, which will be overwritten by new data if the older data is not pulled off quickly enough.
It's also important to have your ISR complete quickly as while the CPU is servicing one ISR other interrupts will be masked, which means if the CPU can't get to them quickly enough data can be lost.
Minimal 16-bit example
The best way to understand is to make some minimal examples yourself.
First learn how to create a minimal bootloader OS and run it on QEMU and real hardware as I've explained here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/32483545/895245
Now you can run in 16-bit real mode:
movw $handler0, 0x00
mov %cs, 0x02
movw $handler1, 0x04
mov %cs, 0x06
int $0
int $1
hlt
handler0:
/* Do 0. */
iret
handler1:
/* Do 1. */
iret
This would do in order:
Do 0.
Do 1.
hlt: stop executing
Note how the processor looks for the first handler at address 0, and the second one at 4: that is a table of handlers called the IVT, and each entry has 4 bytes.
Minimal example that does some IO to make handlers visible.
Protected mode
Modern operating systems run in the so called protected mode.
The handling has more options in this mode, so it is more complex, but the spirit is the same.
Minimal example
See also
Related question: What does "int 0x80" mean in assembly code?
While the 8086 is executing a program an interrupt breaks the normal sequence of execution of instruction, divert its execution to some other program called interrupt service Routine (ISR). after executing, control return the back again to the main program.
An interrupt is used to cause a temporary halt in the execution of program. Microprocessor responds to the interrupt service routine, which is short program or subroutine that instruct the microprocessor on how to handle the interrupt.