nuttx/mm/iob/iob_initialize.c

160 lines
5.2 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

2014-06-03 20:41:34 +02:00
/****************************************************************************
* mm/iob/iob_initialize.c
2014-06-03 20:41:34 +02:00
*
There can be a failure in IOB allocation to some asynchronous behavior caused by the use of sem_post(). Consider this scenario: Task A holds an IOB.  There are no further IOBs.  The value of semcount is zero. Task B calls iob_alloc().  Since there are not IOBs, it calls sem_wait().  The v alue of semcount is now -1. Task A frees the IOB.  iob_free() adds the IOB to the free list and calls sem_post() this makes Task B ready to run and sets semcount to zero NOT 1.  There is one IOB in the free list and semcount is zero.  When Task B wakes up it would increment the sem_count back to the correct value. But an interrupt or another task runs occurs before Task B executes.  The interrupt or other tak takes the IOB off of the free list and decrements the semcount.  But since semcount is then < 0, this causes the assertion because that is an invalid state in the interrupt handler. So I think that the root cause is that there the asynchrony between incrementing the semcount. This change separates the list of IOBs: Currently there is only a free list of IOBs. The problem, I believe, is because of asynchronies due sem_post() post cause the semcount and the list content to become out of sync. This change adds a new 'committed' list: When there is a task waiting for an IOB, it will go into the committed list rather than the free list before the semaphore is posted. On the waiting side, when awakened from the semaphore wait, it will expect to find its IOB in the committed list, rather than free list. In this way, the content of the free list and the value of the semaphore count always remain in sync.
2017-05-16 19:03:35 +02:00
* Copyright (C) 2014, 2017 Gregory Nutt. All rights reserved.
2014-06-03 20:41:34 +02:00
* Author: Gregory Nutt <gnutt@nuttx.org>
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
*
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
* the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
* distribution.
* 3. Neither the name NuttX nor the names of its contributors may be
* used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
* without specific prior written permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
* "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
* LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
* FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
* COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
* INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
* BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
* OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
* AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
* LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
* ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
* POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
*
****************************************************************************/
/****************************************************************************
* Included Files
****************************************************************************/
#include <nuttx/config.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
2014-06-03 20:41:34 +02:00
#include <nuttx/mm/iob.h>
2014-06-03 20:41:34 +02:00
#include "iob.h"
There can be a failure in IOB allocation to some asynchronous behavior caused by the use of sem_post(). Consider this scenario: Task A holds an IOB.  There are no further IOBs.  The value of semcount is zero. Task B calls iob_alloc().  Since there are not IOBs, it calls sem_wait().  The v alue of semcount is now -1. Task A frees the IOB.  iob_free() adds the IOB to the free list and calls sem_post() this makes Task B ready to run and sets semcount to zero NOT 1.  There is one IOB in the free list and semcount is zero.  When Task B wakes up it would increment the sem_count back to the correct value. But an interrupt or another task runs occurs before Task B executes.  The interrupt or other tak takes the IOB off of the free list and decrements the semcount.  But since semcount is then < 0, this causes the assertion because that is an invalid state in the interrupt handler. So I think that the root cause is that there the asynchrony between incrementing the semcount. This change separates the list of IOBs: Currently there is only a free list of IOBs. The problem, I believe, is because of asynchronies due sem_post() post cause the semcount and the list content to become out of sync. This change adds a new 'committed' list: When there is a task waiting for an IOB, it will go into the committed list rather than the free list before the semaphore is posted. On the waiting side, when awakened from the semaphore wait, it will expect to find its IOB in the committed list, rather than free list. In this way, the content of the free list and the value of the semaphore count always remain in sync.
2017-05-16 19:03:35 +02:00
/****************************************************************************
* Pre-processor Definitions
****************************************************************************/
#ifndef NULL
# define NULL ((FAR void *)0)
#endif
2014-06-03 20:41:34 +02:00
/****************************************************************************
* Private Data
****************************************************************************/
/* This is a pool of pre-allocated I/O buffers */
static struct iob_s g_iob_pool[CONFIG_IOB_NBUFFERS];
#if CONFIG_IOB_NCHAINS > 0
static struct iob_qentry_s g_iob_qpool[CONFIG_IOB_NCHAINS];
#endif
2014-06-03 20:41:34 +02:00
/****************************************************************************
* Public Data
****************************************************************************/
/* A list of all free, unallocated I/O buffers */
FAR struct iob_s *g_iob_freelist;
There can be a failure in IOB allocation to some asynchronous behavior caused by the use of sem_post(). Consider this scenario: Task A holds an IOB.  There are no further IOBs.  The value of semcount is zero. Task B calls iob_alloc().  Since there are not IOBs, it calls sem_wait().  The v alue of semcount is now -1. Task A frees the IOB.  iob_free() adds the IOB to the free list and calls sem_post() this makes Task B ready to run and sets semcount to zero NOT 1.  There is one IOB in the free list and semcount is zero.  When Task B wakes up it would increment the sem_count back to the correct value. But an interrupt or another task runs occurs before Task B executes.  The interrupt or other tak takes the IOB off of the free list and decrements the semcount.  But since semcount is then < 0, this causes the assertion because that is an invalid state in the interrupt handler. So I think that the root cause is that there the asynchrony between incrementing the semcount. This change separates the list of IOBs: Currently there is only a free list of IOBs. The problem, I believe, is because of asynchronies due sem_post() post cause the semcount and the list content to become out of sync. This change adds a new 'committed' list: When there is a task waiting for an IOB, it will go into the committed list rather than the free list before the semaphore is posted. On the waiting side, when awakened from the semaphore wait, it will expect to find its IOB in the committed list, rather than free list. In this way, the content of the free list and the value of the semaphore count always remain in sync.
2017-05-16 19:03:35 +02:00
/* A list of I/O buffers that are committed for allocation */
FAR struct iob_s *g_iob_committed;
#if CONFIG_IOB_NCHAINS > 0
There can be a failure in IOB allocation to some asynchronous behavior caused by the use of sem_post(). Consider this scenario: Task A holds an IOB.  There are no further IOBs.  The value of semcount is zero. Task B calls iob_alloc().  Since there are not IOBs, it calls sem_wait().  The v alue of semcount is now -1. Task A frees the IOB.  iob_free() adds the IOB to the free list and calls sem_post() this makes Task B ready to run and sets semcount to zero NOT 1.  There is one IOB in the free list and semcount is zero.  When Task B wakes up it would increment the sem_count back to the correct value. But an interrupt or another task runs occurs before Task B executes.  The interrupt or other tak takes the IOB off of the free list and decrements the semcount.  But since semcount is then < 0, this causes the assertion because that is an invalid state in the interrupt handler. So I think that the root cause is that there the asynchrony between incrementing the semcount. This change separates the list of IOBs: Currently there is only a free list of IOBs. The problem, I believe, is because of asynchronies due sem_post() post cause the semcount and the list content to become out of sync. This change adds a new 'committed' list: When there is a task waiting for an IOB, it will go into the committed list rather than the free list before the semaphore is posted. On the waiting side, when awakened from the semaphore wait, it will expect to find its IOB in the committed list, rather than free list. In this way, the content of the free list and the value of the semaphore count always remain in sync.
2017-05-16 19:03:35 +02:00
/* A list of all free, unallocated I/O buffer queue containers */
FAR struct iob_qentry_s *g_iob_freeqlist;
There can be a failure in IOB allocation to some asynchronous behavior caused by the use of sem_post(). Consider this scenario: Task A holds an IOB.  There are no further IOBs.  The value of semcount is zero. Task B calls iob_alloc().  Since there are not IOBs, it calls sem_wait().  The v alue of semcount is now -1. Task A frees the IOB.  iob_free() adds the IOB to the free list and calls sem_post() this makes Task B ready to run and sets semcount to zero NOT 1.  There is one IOB in the free list and semcount is zero.  When Task B wakes up it would increment the sem_count back to the correct value. But an interrupt or another task runs occurs before Task B executes.  The interrupt or other tak takes the IOB off of the free list and decrements the semcount.  But since semcount is then < 0, this causes the assertion because that is an invalid state in the interrupt handler. So I think that the root cause is that there the asynchrony between incrementing the semcount. This change separates the list of IOBs: Currently there is only a free list of IOBs. The problem, I believe, is because of asynchronies due sem_post() post cause the semcount and the list content to become out of sync. This change adds a new 'committed' list: When there is a task waiting for an IOB, it will go into the committed list rather than the free list before the semaphore is posted. On the waiting side, when awakened from the semaphore wait, it will expect to find its IOB in the committed list, rather than free list. In this way, the content of the free list and the value of the semaphore count always remain in sync.
2017-05-16 19:03:35 +02:00
/* A list of I/O buffer queue containers that are committed for allocation */
FAR struct iob_qentry_s *g_iob_qcommitted;
#endif
/* Counting semaphores that tracks the number of free IOBs/qentries */
sem_t g_iob_sem; /* Counts free I/O buffers */
#if CONFIG_IOB_THROTTLE > 0
sem_t g_throttle_sem; /* Counts available I/O buffers when throttled */
#endif
#if CONFIG_IOB_NCHAINS > 0
sem_t g_qentry_sem; /* Counts free I/O buffer queue containers */
#endif
2014-06-03 20:41:34 +02:00
/****************************************************************************
* Public Functions
****************************************************************************/
/****************************************************************************
* Name: iob_initialize
*
* Description:
* Set up the I/O buffers for normal operations.
*
****************************************************************************/
void iob_initialize(void)
{
static bool initialized = false;
int i;
/* Perform one-time initialization */
if (!initialized)
{
/* Add each I/O buffer to the free list */
for (i = 0; i < CONFIG_IOB_NBUFFERS; i++)
{
FAR struct iob_s *iob = &g_iob_pool[i];
/* Add the pre-allocate I/O buffer to the head of the free list */
iob->io_flink = g_iob_freelist;
g_iob_freelist = iob;
}
There can be a failure in IOB allocation to some asynchronous behavior caused by the use of sem_post(). Consider this scenario: Task A holds an IOB.  There are no further IOBs.  The value of semcount is zero. Task B calls iob_alloc().  Since there are not IOBs, it calls sem_wait().  The v alue of semcount is now -1. Task A frees the IOB.  iob_free() adds the IOB to the free list and calls sem_post() this makes Task B ready to run and sets semcount to zero NOT 1.  There is one IOB in the free list and semcount is zero.  When Task B wakes up it would increment the sem_count back to the correct value. But an interrupt or another task runs occurs before Task B executes.  The interrupt or other tak takes the IOB off of the free list and decrements the semcount.  But since semcount is then < 0, this causes the assertion because that is an invalid state in the interrupt handler. So I think that the root cause is that there the asynchrony between incrementing the semcount. This change separates the list of IOBs: Currently there is only a free list of IOBs. The problem, I believe, is because of asynchronies due sem_post() post cause the semcount and the list content to become out of sync. This change adds a new 'committed' list: When there is a task waiting for an IOB, it will go into the committed list rather than the free list before the semaphore is posted. On the waiting side, when awakened from the semaphore wait, it will expect to find its IOB in the committed list, rather than free list. In this way, the content of the free list and the value of the semaphore count always remain in sync.
2017-05-16 19:03:35 +02:00
g_iob_committed = NULL;
There can be a failure in IOB allocation to some asynchronous behavior caused by the use of sem_post(). Consider this scenario: Task A holds an IOB.  There are no further IOBs.  The value of semcount is zero. Task B calls iob_alloc().  Since there are not IOBs, it calls sem_wait().  The v alue of semcount is now -1. Task A frees the IOB.  iob_free() adds the IOB to the free list and calls sem_post() this makes Task B ready to run and sets semcount to zero NOT 1.  There is one IOB in the free list and semcount is zero.  When Task B wakes up it would increment the sem_count back to the correct value. But an interrupt or another task runs occurs before Task B executes.  The interrupt or other tak takes the IOB off of the free list and decrements the semcount.  But since semcount is then < 0, this causes the assertion because that is an invalid state in the interrupt handler. So I think that the root cause is that there the asynchrony between incrementing the semcount. This change separates the list of IOBs: Currently there is only a free list of IOBs. The problem, I believe, is because of asynchronies due sem_post() post cause the semcount and the list content to become out of sync. This change adds a new 'committed' list: When there is a task waiting for an IOB, it will go into the committed list rather than the free list before the semaphore is posted. On the waiting side, when awakened from the semaphore wait, it will expect to find its IOB in the committed list, rather than free list. In this way, the content of the free list and the value of the semaphore count always remain in sync.
2017-05-16 19:03:35 +02:00
sem_init(&g_iob_sem, 0, CONFIG_IOB_NBUFFERS);
#if CONFIG_IOB_THROTTLE > 0
sem_init(&g_throttle_sem, 0, CONFIG_IOB_NBUFFERS - CONFIG_IOB_THROTTLE);
#endif
#if CONFIG_IOB_NCHAINS > 0
/* Add each I/O buffer chain queue container to the free list */
for (i = 0; i < CONFIG_IOB_NCHAINS; i++)
{
FAR struct iob_qentry_s *iobq = &g_iob_qpool[i];
/* Add the pre-allocate buffer container to the head of the free list */
iobq->qe_flink = g_iob_freeqlist;
g_iob_freeqlist = iobq;
2014-06-03 20:41:34 +02:00
}
There can be a failure in IOB allocation to some asynchronous behavior caused by the use of sem_post(). Consider this scenario: Task A holds an IOB.  There are no further IOBs.  The value of semcount is zero. Task B calls iob_alloc().  Since there are not IOBs, it calls sem_wait().  The v alue of semcount is now -1. Task A frees the IOB.  iob_free() adds the IOB to the free list and calls sem_post() this makes Task B ready to run and sets semcount to zero NOT 1.  There is one IOB in the free list and semcount is zero.  When Task B wakes up it would increment the sem_count back to the correct value. But an interrupt or another task runs occurs before Task B executes.  The interrupt or other tak takes the IOB off of the free list and decrements the semcount.  But since semcount is then < 0, this causes the assertion because that is an invalid state in the interrupt handler. So I think that the root cause is that there the asynchrony between incrementing the semcount. This change separates the list of IOBs: Currently there is only a free list of IOBs. The problem, I believe, is because of asynchronies due sem_post() post cause the semcount and the list content to become out of sync. This change adds a new 'committed' list: When there is a task waiting for an IOB, it will go into the committed list rather than the free list before the semaphore is posted. On the waiting side, when awakened from the semaphore wait, it will expect to find its IOB in the committed list, rather than free list. In this way, the content of the free list and the value of the semaphore count always remain in sync.
2017-05-16 19:03:35 +02:00
g_iob_qcommitted = NULL;
sem_init(&g_qentry_sem, 0, CONFIG_IOB_NCHAINS);
#endif
2014-06-03 20:41:34 +02:00
initialized = true;
}
}