Going over this sample semaphore implementations (for SMP systems), I understand the test-and-set is required for multiprocessor atomic checks. However, once we add the atomic checks aren't the disable interrupts redundant ? The disable interrupts, anyway, only offer atomicity over one processor. Addition to the semaphore queue also needs to be protected.
class semaphore {
private int t;
private int count;
private queue q;
public semaphore(int init)
{
t = 0;
count = init;
q = new queue();
}
public void P()
{
Disable interrupts;
while (TAS(t) != 0) { /* just spin */ };
if (count > 0) {
count--;
t = 0;
Enable interrupts;
return;
}
Add process to q;
t = 0;
Enable interrupts;
Redispatch;
}
public V()
{
Disable interrupts;
while (TAS(t) != 0) { /* just spin */ };
if (q == empty) {
count++;
} else {
Remove first process from q;
Wake it up;
}
t = 0;
Enable interrupts;
}
}
While it is true that turning interrupts off on one processor is insufficient to guarantee atomic memory access in a multiprocessor system (because, as you mention, threads on other processors can still access shared resources), we turn interrupts off for part of the multiprocessor semaphore implementation because we do not want to be descheduled while we are doing a test and set.
If a thread holding the test and set is descheduled, no other threads can do anything with the semaphore (because its count is protected by that test and set) the thread was using while it's asleep (this is not good). In order to guarantee that this doesn't happen we'll turn interrupts on our processor off while using the test and set.
Related
I am new to FreeRTOS, so I started with what I think is a great tutorial, the one presented by Shawn Hymel. I'm also implementing the code that I'm writting in a ESP32 DevkitC V4.
However, I think that I don't understand the difference between binary semaphores and mutexes. When I run this code that tries to avoid deadlock between two tasks that use two mutexes to protect a critical section (as shown in the tutorial):
// Use only core 1 for demo purposes
#if CONFIG_FREERTOS_UNICORE
static const BaseType_t app_cpu = 0;
#else
static const BaseType_t app_cpu = 1;
#endif
//Settings
TickType_t mutex_timeout = 1000 / portTICK_PERIOD_MS;
//Timeout for any task that tries to take a mutex!
//Globals
static SemaphoreHandle_t mutex_1;
static SemaphoreHandle_t mutex_2;
//**********************************************************
//Tasks
//Task A (High priority)
void doTaskA(void*parameters){
while(1){
//Take mutex 1
if( xSemaphoreTake(mutex_1, mutex_timeout) == pdTRUE){
Serial.println("Task A took mutex 1");
vTaskDelay(1 / portTICK_PERIOD_MS);
//Take mutex 2
if(xSemaphoreTake(mutex_2, mutex_timeout) == pdTRUE){
Serial.println("Task A took mutex 2");
//Critical section protected by 2 mutexes
Serial.println("Task A doing work");
vTaskDelay(500/portTICK_PERIOD_MS); //simulate that critical section takes 500ms
} else {
Serial.println("Task A timed out waiting for mutex 2. Trying again...");
}
} else {
Serial.println("Task A timed out waiting for mutex 1. Trying again...");
}
//Return mutexes
xSemaphoreGive(mutex_2);
xSemaphoreGive(mutex_1);
Serial.println("Task A going to sleep");
vTaskDelay(500/portTICK_PERIOD_MS);
//Wait to let other task execute
}
}
//Task B (low priority)
void doTaskB(void * parameters){
while(1){
//Take mutex 2 and wait to force deadlock
if(xSemaphoreTake(mutex_2, mutex_timeout)==pdTRUE){
Serial.println("Task B took mutex 2");
vTaskDelay(1 / portTICK_PERIOD_MS);
if(xSemaphoreTake(mutex_1, mutex_timeout) == pdTRUE){
Serial.println("Task B took mutex 1");
//Critical section protected by 2 mutexes
Serial.println("Task B doing work");
vTaskDelay(500/portTICK_PERIOD_MS); //simulate that critical section takes 500ms
} else {
Serial.println("Task B timed out waiting for mutex 1");
}
} else {
Serial.println("Task B timed out waiting for mutex 2");
}
//Return mutexes
xSemaphoreGive(mutex_1);
xSemaphoreGive(mutex_2);
Serial.println("Task B going to sleep");
vTaskDelay(500/portTICK_PERIOD_MS);
//Wait to let other task execute
}
}
void setup(){
Serial.begin(115200);
vTaskDelay(1000 / portTICK_PERIOD_MS);
Serial.println();
Serial.println("---FreeRTOS Deadlock Demo---");
//create mutexes
mutex_1 = xSemaphoreCreateMutex();
mutex_2 = xSemaphoreCreateMutex();
//Start task A (high priority)
xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(doTaskA, "Task A", 1500, NULL, 2, NULL, app_cpu);
//Start task B (low priority)
xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(doTaskB, "Task B", 1500, NULL, 1, NULL, app_cpu);
vTaskDelete(NULL);
}
void loop(){
}
My ESP32 starts automatically rebooting after both tasks reach their first mutex in execution, displaying this message:
---FreeRTOS Deadlock Demo---
Task A took mutex 1
Task B took mutex 2
Task A timed out waiting for mutex 2. Trying again...
assert failed: xQueueGenericSend queue.c:832 (pxQueue->pcHead != ((void *)0) || pxQueue->u.xSemaphore.xMutexHolder == ((void *)0) || pxQueue->u.xSemaphore.xMutexHolder == xTaskGetCurrentTaskHandle())
I am unable to interpret the error. However, when I change the definition of the mutexes to binary semaphores in setup():
//create mutexes
mutex_1 = xSemaphoreCreateBinary();
mutex_2 = xSemaphoreCreateBinary();
The code runs fine in the ESP32. Would anyone please explain me why this happens? Many thanks and sorry if the question wasn't adequately made, as this is my first one.
One of the key differences between semaphores and mutexes is the concept of ownership. Semaphores, don't have a thread that owns them. A higher priority thread can acquire a semaphore even if a lower priority thread has already acquired it. On the other hand, mutexes are owned by the thread that acquires them and can only be released by that thread.
In your code above, mutex_1 is acquired by Task A and mutex_2 is acquired by Task B. At this point, Task A is trying to acquire mutex_2. When it is an actual mutex, Task A cannot acquire it since it is owned by Task B. If this were a semaphore, however, Task A could acquire it from Task B. Thus clearing the deadlock.
The error here plays into that. After task A times out waiting for mutex_2, it starts to release the mutexes. It can release mutex_1 no problem because it owns it. When it tries to release mutex_2, it cannot because it is not the owner. Thus the OS throws an error because a task shouldn't try to release a mutex it doesn't own.
If you want to read a little more about the differences between mutexes and semaphores, you can check out this article.
I am trying to read data with unkown size using UART Receive Interrupt. In the call back function, I enabled Rx interrupt in order to read characters until \n is gotten. If \n is get, then higher priority task which is deferred interrupt handler is woken. The problem is that I tried to read one by one byte via call back function and I tried to put each character into a buffer, but unfortunately buffer could not get any character. Moreover, deferred interrupt handler could not be woken.
My STM32 board is STM32F767ZI, and my IDE is KEIL.
Some Important notes before sharing the code:
1. rxIndex and gpsBuffer are declared as global.
2. Periodic function works without any problem.
Here is my code:
Periodic Function, Priority = 1
void vPeriodicTask(void *pvParameters)
{
const TickType_t xDelay500ms = pdMS_TO_TICKS(500UL);
while (1) {
vTaskDelay(xDelay500ms);
HAL_UART_Transmit(&huart3,(uint8_t*)"Imu\r\n",sizeof("Imu\r\n"),1000);
HAL_GPIO_TogglePin(GPIOB,GPIO_PIN_7);
}
}
Deferred Interrupt, Priority = 3
void vHandlerTask(void *pvParameters)
{
const TickType_t xMaxExpectedBlockTime = pdMS_TO_TICKS(1000);
while(1) {
if (xSemaphoreTake(xBinarySemaphore,xMaxExpectedBlockTime) == pdPASS) {
HAL_UART_Transmit(&huart3,(uint8_t*)"Semaphore Acquired\r\n",sizeof("Semaphore
Acquired\r\n"),1000);
// Some important processes will be added here
rxIndex = 0;
HAL_GPIO_TogglePin(GPIOB,GPIO_PIN_14);
}
}
}
Call back function:
void HAL_UART_RxCptlCallBack(UART_HandleTypeDef *huart)
{
gpsBuffer[rxIndex++] = rData;
if (rData == 0x0A) {
BaseType_t xHigherPriorityTaskWoken;
xSemaphoreGiveFromISR(xBinarySemaphore,&xHigherPriorityTaskWoken);
portEND_SWITCHING_ISR(xHigherPriorityTaskWoken);
}
HAL_UART_Receive_IT(huart,(uint8_t*)&rData,1);
}
Main function
HAL_UART_Receive_IT(&huart3,&rData,1);
xBinarySemaphore = xSemaphoreCreateBinary();
if (xBinarySemaphore != NULL) {
//success
xTaskCreate(vHandlerTask,"Handler",128,NULL,1,&vHandlerTaskHandler);
xTaskCreate(vPeriodicTask,"Periodic",128,NULL,3,&vPeriodicTaskHandler);
vTaskStartScheduler();
}
Using HAL for it is a best way to get into the troubles. It uses HAL_Delay which is systick dependant and you should rewrite this function to read RTOS tick instead.
I use queues to pass the data (the references to data) but it should work. There is always a big question mark when using the HAL functions.
void HAL_UART_RxCptlCallBack(UART_HandleTypeDef *huart)
{
BaseType_t xHigherPriorityTaskWoken = pdFALSE;
gpsBuffer[rxIndex++] = rData;
if (rData == 0x0A) {
if(xSemaphoreGiveFromISR(xBinarySemaphore,&xHigherPriorityTaskWoken) == pdFALSE)
{
/* some error handling */
}
}
HAL_UART_Receive_IT(huart,(uint8_t*)&rData,1);
portEND_SWITCHING_ISR(xHigherPriorityTaskWoken);
}
Concluding if I use HAL & RTOS I always modify the way HAL handles timeouts.
I have this lock() unlock() mutex implementation:
void lock (boolean *m) {
while (*m == true) {}
*m = true;
}
void unlock (boolean *m) {
*m = false;
}
Question is, what is wrong with this kind of approach. Beside obvious performance implications.
Suppose the mutex is initially true/locked and threads A & B have each called lock. If after C unlocks it, A & B each check m before either sets m to true, both will get past the lock.
My Environment: C++ Builder XE4.
I am using Mutex. In the following code, I expect that while Timer1 would acquire mutex, Timer2 process would be skipped. However, Timer2 process was not skipped at all.
What is the problem in the code?
Unit1.cpp
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
#include <vcl.h>
#pragma hdrstop
#include "Unit1.h"
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
#pragma package(smart_init)
#pragma resource "*.dfm"
TForm1 *Form1;
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
__fastcall TForm1::TForm1(TComponent* Owner)
: TForm(Owner)
{
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
String MutexName = L"Project1";
HANDLE HWNDMutex;
void __fastcall TForm1::FormShow(TObject *Sender)
{
HWNDMutex = CreateMutex(NULL, false, MutexName.c_str());
if (HWNDMutex == NULL) {
String msg = L"failed to create mutex";
OutputDebugString(msg.c_str());
}
Timer1->Enabled = false;
Timer1->Interval = 1000; // msec
Timer1->Enabled = true;
Timer2->Enabled = false;
Timer2->Interval = 200; // msec
Timer2->Enabled = true;
}
__fastcall TForm1::~TForm1()
{
CloseHandle(HWNDMutex);
}
void __fastcall TForm1::Timer1Timer(TObject *Sender)
{
if (WaitForSingleObject(HWNDMutex, INFINITE) == WAIT_TIMEOUT) {
return;
}
if (CHK_update->Checked) {
String msg = L"Timer1 " + Now().FormatString(L"yyyy/mm/dd hh:nn:ss.zzz");
Memo1->Lines->Add(msg);
}
for(int loop=0; loop<10; loop++) {
Application->ProcessMessages();
Sleep(90); // msec
}
ReleaseMutex(HWNDMutex);
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
void __fastcall TForm1::Timer2Timer(TObject *Sender)
{
if (WaitForSingleObject(HWNDMutex, INFINITE) == WAIT_TIMEOUT) {
return;
}
if (CHK_update->Checked) {
String msg = L">>>Timer2 " + Now().FormatString(L"yyyy/mm/dd hh:nn:ss.zzz");
Memo1->Lines->Add(msg);
}
ReleaseMutex(HWNDMutex);
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result
Timer1 2017/11/08 15:20:39.781
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:39.786
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:40.058
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:40.241
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:40.423
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:40.603
Timer1 2017/11/08 15:20:40.796
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:40.799
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:41.071
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:41.254
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:41.436
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:41.619
Timer1 2017/11/08 15:20:41.810
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:41.811
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:42.083
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:42.265
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:42.448
>>>Timer2 2017/11/08 15:20:42.633
I tried using TMutex with acquire() and release(), but it did not work either.
A mutex has a thread affinity and thus is re-entrant:
A mutex object is a synchronization object whose state is set to signaled when it is not owned by any thread, and nonsignaled when it is owned. Only one thread at a time can own a mutex object, whose name comes from the fact that it is useful in coordinating mutually exclusive access to a shared resource. For example, to prevent two threads from writing to shared memory at the same time, each thread waits for ownership of a mutex object before executing the code that accesses the memory. After writing to the shared memory, the thread releases the mutex object.
...
After a thread obtains ownership of a mutex, it can specify the same mutex in repeated calls to the wait-functions without blocking its execution. This prevents a thread from deadlocking itself while waiting for a mutex that it already owns. To release its ownership under such circumstances, the thread must call ReleaseMutex once for each time that the mutex satisfied the conditions of a wait function.
TTimer is a message-based timer. You have two timers running in the same thread. Which means their OnTimer events are serialized by default in relation to each other. Only one event can be running at a time (unless you do something stupid like call Application->ProcessMessages(), which is a re-entrant nightmare).
Timer2 will trigger first (4-5 times, actually), acquiring and releasing the mutex lock each time, before Timer1 triggers. Then Timer1 triggers, acquires the lock, runs a loop to pump the main UI message queue, thus allowing Timer2 to trigger again (multiple times) while Timer1Timer() is still running. Timer2 will re-acquire and release the same lock that the UI thread already has, so WaitForSingleObject() exits with WAIT_OBJECT_0 immediately. Then the loop ends and Timer1 releases the lock.
Your mutex is useless in this code. A mutex is meant for inter-thread synchronization, but you have no worker threads in this code! You have a single thread synchronizing against itself, which is redundant, and exactly the kind of deadlock-causing situation that many synchronization objects avoid by supporting re-entry.
A critical section also has a thread affinity and is re-entrant, so that is not going to help you, either:
A critical section object provides synchronization similar to that provided by a mutex object, except that a critical section can be used only by the threads of a single process.
...
When a thread owns a critical section, it can make additional calls to EnterCriticalSection or TryEnterCriticalSection without blocking its execution. This prevents a thread from deadlocking itself while waiting for a critical section that it already owns. To release its ownership, the thread must call LeaveCriticalSection one time for each time that it entered the critical section. There is no guarantee about the order in which waiting threads will acquire ownership of the critical section.
However, a semaphore would work for what you are attempting, as it does not have a thread affinity:
A semaphore object is a synchronization object that maintains a count between zero and a specified maximum value. The count is decremented each time a thread completes a wait for the semaphore object and incremented each time a thread releases the semaphore. When the count reaches zero, no more threads can successfully wait for the semaphore object state to become signaled. The state of a semaphore is set to signaled when its count is greater than zero, and nonsignaled when its count is zero.
The semaphore object is useful in controlling a shared resource that can support a limited number of users. It acts as a gate that limits the number of threads sharing the resource to a specified maximum number. For example, an application might place a limit on the number of windows that it creates. It uses a semaphore with a maximum count equal to the window limit, decrementing the count whenever a window is created and incrementing it whenever a window is closed. The application specifies the semaphore object in call to one of the wait functions before each window is created. When the count is zero—indicating that the window limit has been reached—the wait function blocks execution of the window-creation code.
...
A thread that owns a mutex object can wait repeatedly for the same mutex object to become signaled without its execution becoming blocked. A thread that waits repeatedly for the same semaphore object, however, decrements the semaphore's count each time a wait operation is completed; the thread is blocked when the count gets to zero. Similarly, only the thread that owns a mutex can successfully call the ReleaseMutex function, though any thread can use ReleaseSemaphore to increase the count of a semaphore object.
If you switch to a semaphore, your code as shown would deadlock itself as soon as Application->ProcessMessages() is called and the semaphore counter drops to 0, because of your use of INFINITE timeouts. So use smaller timeouts to prevent that.
Try this:
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
#include <vcl.h>
#pragma hdrstop
#include "Unit1.h"
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
#pragma package(smart_init)
#pragma resource "*.dfm"
TForm1 *Form1;
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
__fastcall TForm1::TForm1(TComponent* Owner)
: TForm(Owner)
{
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HANDLE hSemaphore;
void __fastcall TForm1::FormShow(TObject *Sender)
{
hSemaphore = CreateSemaphore(NULL, 1, 1, NULL);
if (hSemaphore == NULL) {
OutputDebugString(L"failed to create semaphore");
}
Timer1->Enabled = false;
Timer1->Interval = 1000; // msec
Timer1->Enabled = true;
Timer2->Enabled = false;
Timer2->Interval = 200; // msec
Timer2->Enabled = true;
}
__fastcall TForm1::~TForm1()
{
if (hSemaphore)
CloseHandle(hSemaphore);
}
void __fastcall TForm1::Timer1Timer(TObject *Sender)
{
if (WaitForSingleObject(hSemaphore, 0) != WAIT_OBJECT_0) {
return;
}
if (CHK_update->Checked) {
String msg = L"Timer1 " + Now().FormatString(L"yyyy/mm/dd hh:nn:ss.zzz");
Memo1->Lines->Add(msg);
}
for(int loop=0; loop<10; loop++) {
Application->ProcessMessages();
Sleep(90); // msec
}
ReleaseSemaphore(hSemaphore, 1, NULL);
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
void __fastcall TForm1::Timer2Timer(TObject *Sender)
{
if (WaitForSingleObject(hSemaphore, 0) != WAIT_OBJECT_0) {
return;
}
if (CHK_update->Checked) {
String msg = L">>>Timer2 " + Now().FormatString(L"yyyy/mm/dd hh:nn:ss.zzz");
Memo1->Lines->Add(msg);
}
ReleaseSemaphore(hSemaphore, 1, NULL);
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a side note: beware of giving a kernel-based synchronization object a name. That allows other processes to access it and mess around with its state behind your back. Don't name objects that you don't intend to share across process boundaries! Mutexes and semaphores are namable objects.
How do i Define a semaphore with busy waiting solution ??i got something like this
wait(Semaphore s){
s=s-1;
if (s<=0) {
// add process to queue
block();
}
}
signal(Semaphore s){
s=s+1;
if (s<0) {
// remove process p from queue
wakeup(p);
}
}
but i don't understand the condition required in signal block
if (s<0) {
// remove process p from queue
wakeup(p);
}
why we are checking if(s<0) here
The condition should probably detect if there is any process sleeping (blocked) in the queue. However, I think these conditions are not correct, considering behaviour of a binary semaphore (semaphore initially with s == 1) the pseudocode should be
wait(Semaphore s){
s=s-1;
if (s<0) {
// add process to queue
block();
}
}
signal(Semaphore s){
s=s+1;
if (s<=0) {
// remove process p from queue
wakeup(p);
}
}