nuttx/Documentation/guides/nestedinterrupts.rst

=================
Nested Interrupts
=================

Are Nested Interrupts Needed?
=============================

Most NuttX architectures do not support nested interrupts: Interrupts
are disabled when the interrupt is entered and restored when the
interrupt returns. Being able to handle nested interrupt is critical in
simple architectures where a lot of interrupt level processing is
performed: In this case, you can prioritize interrupts and assure that
the highest priority interrupt processing is not delayed by lower level
interrupt processing.

In an RTOS model, however, all interrupt processing should be as brief
as possible; any extended processing should be deferred to a user task
and not performed in the interrupt handler. However, you may find a need
to have nested interrupt handling in NuttX too. The lack of support of
nested interrupts is not inherently an issue with NuttX and need not be
the case; it should be a simple matter to modify the interrupt handling
so that interrupts are nested.

Layered Interrupt Handling Architecture
=======================================

Interrupt handling occurs in several files. In most implementations,
there are several layers of interrupt handling logic:

#. Some low-level logic, usually in assembly language, that catches the
   interrupt and determines the IRQ number. Consider
   ``arch/arm/src/armv7-m/up_exception.S`` as an example for the
   Cortex-M family.

#. That low-level logic than calls some MCU-specific, intermediate level
   function usually called ``up_doirq()``. An example is
   ``arch/arm/src/armv7-m/up_doirq.c``.

#. That MCU-specific function then calls the NuttX common interrupt
   dispatching logic ``irq_dispatch()`` that can be found at
   ``sched/irq_dispatch.c``.

How to Implement Nested Interrupts in the Layered Interrupt Handling Architecture
=================================================================================

The logic in these first two levels that would have to change to support
nested interrupt handling. Here is one technical approach to do that:

#. Add a global variable, say ``g_nestlevel``, that counts the interrupt
   nesting level. It would have an initial value of zero; it would be
   incremented on each interrupt entry and decremented on interrupt exit
   (making sure that interrupts are disabled in each case because
   incrementing and decrementing are not usually atomic operations).

#. At the lowest level, there is usually some assembly language logic
   that will switch from the user's stack to a special interrupt level
   stack. This behavior is controlled ``CONFIG_ARCH_INTERRUPTSTACK``.
   The logic here would have to change in the following way: If
   ``g_nestlevel`` is zero then behave as normal, switching from the
   user to the interrupt stack; if ``g_nestlevel`` is greater than zero,
   then do not switch stacks. In this latter case, we are already using
   the interrupt stack.

#. In the middle-level, MCU-specific is where the ``g_nestlevel`` would
   be increment. And here some additional decision must be made based on
   the state of ``g_nestlevel``. If ``g_nestlevel`` is zero, then we
   have interrupted user code and we need to handle the context
   information specially and handle interrupt level context switches. If
   ``g_nestlevel`` is greater than zero, then the interrupt handler was
   interrupt by an interrupt. In this case, the interrupt handling must
   always return to the interrupt handler. No context switch can occur
   here. No context switch can occur until the outermost, nested
   interrupt handler returns to the user task.

#. You would also need to support some kind of critical section within
   interrupt handlers to prevent nested interrupts. For example, within
   the logic of functions like ``up_block_task()``. Such logic must be
   atomic in any case.

**NOTE 1**: The ARMv7-M could also be configured to use separate MSP and
PSP stacks with the interupt processing using the MSP stack and the
tasks all using the PSP stacks. This is not compatible with certain
parts of the existing design and would be more effort, but could result
in a better solution.

**NOTE 2**: SMP has this same issue as 2 but it is addressed
differently: With SMP there is an array of stacks indexed by the CPU
number so that all CPUs get to have an interrupt stack. See for
example,
`LC823450 <https://bitbucket.org/nuttx/nuttx/src/ca4ef377fb789ddc3e70979b28acb6730ff6a98c/arch/arm/src/lc823450/chip.h>`_
or
`i.MX6 <https://bitbucket.org/nuttx/nuttx/src/ca4ef377fb789ddc3e70979b28acb6730ff6a98c/arch/arm/src/imx6/chip.h>`_
SMP logic.

A generic ``up_doirq()`` might look like the following. It can be very
simple because interrupts are disabled:

.. code-block:: c

  uint32_t *up_doirq(int irq, uint32_t *regs)
  {
    /* Current regs non-zero indicates that we are processing an interrupt;
     * current_regs is also used to manage interrupt level context switches.
     */
   
    current_regs = regs;
   
    /* Deliver the IRQ */
   
    irq_dispatch(irq, regs);
   
    /* If a context switch occurred while processing the interrupt then
     * current_regs may have change value.  If we return any value different
     * from the input regs, then the lower level will know that a context
     * switch occurred during interrupt processing.
     */
   
    regs = (uint32_t*)current_regs;
    current_regs = NULL;
    return regs;
  }

What has to change to support nested interrupts is:

#. If we are nested, then we must retain the original value of
   ``current_regs``. This will be need when the outermost interrupt
   handler returns in order to handle interrupt level context switches.

#. If we are nested, then we need to always return the same value of
   ``regs`` that was received.

So the modified version of ``up_doirq()`` would be as follows. Here we
assume that interrupts are enabled.

.. code-block:: c

  uint32_t *up_doirq(int irq, uint32_t *regs)
  {
    irqstate_t flags;
   
    /* Current regs non-zero indicates that we are processing an interrupt;
     * regs holds the state of the interrupted logic; current_regs holds the
     * state of the interrupted user task.  current_regs should, therefor,
     * only be modified for outermost interrupt handler (when g_nestlevel == 0)
     */
   
    flags = irqsave();
    if (g_nestlevel == 0)
      {
        current_regs = regs;
      }
    g_nestlevel++
    irqrestore(flags);
   
    /* Deliver the IRQ */
   
    irq_dispatch(irq, regs);
   
    /* Context switches are indicated by the returned value of this function.
     * If a context switch occurred while processing the interrupt then
     * current_regs may have change value.  If we return any value different
     * from the input regs, then the lower level will know that a context
     * switch occurred during interrupt processing.  Context switching should
     * only be performed when the outermost interrupt handler returns.
     */
   
    flags = irqsave();
    g_nestlevel--;
    if (g_nestlevel == 0)
      {
        regs = (uint32_t*)current_regs;
        current_regs = NULL;
      }
   
    /* Note that interrupts are left disabled.  This needed if context switch
     * will be performed.  But, any case, the correct interrupt state should
     * be restored when returning from the interrupt.
     */
   
    return regs;
  }

**NOTE:** An alternative, cleaner design might also be possible. If one
were to defer all context switching to a *PendSV* handler, then the
interrupts could vector to the ``do_irq()`` logic and then all
interrupts would be naturally nestable.

SVCall vs PendSV
================

An issue that may be related to nested interrupt handling is the use of
the ``SVCall`` exceptions in NuttX. The ``SVCall`` exception is used as
a classic software interrupt in NuttX for performing context switches,
user- to kernel-mode changes (and vice versa), and also for system calls
when NuttX is built as a kernel.

``SVCall`` exceptions are never performed from interrupt level, handler
mode processing; only from thread mode logic. The ``SVCall`` exception
is used as follows to perform the system call:

* All interrupts are disabled: There are a few steps the must be
  performed in a critical section. Those setups and the ``SVCall`` must
  work as a single, uninterrupted atomic action.

* A special register setup is put in place: Parameters are passed to the
  ``SVCall`` in registers just as with a normal function call.

* The Cortex SVC instruction is executed. This causes the ``SVCall``
  exception which is dispatched to the ``SVCall`` exception handler.
  This exception must occur while the input register setup is in place;
  it cannot be deferred and perform at some later time. The ``SVCall``
  exception handler decodes the registers and performs the requested
  operation. If no context switch occurs, the ``SVCall`` will return to
  the caller immediately.

* Upon return interrupts will be re-enabled.

So what does this have to do with nested interrupt handling? Since
interrupts are disabled throughout the ``SVCall`` sequence, nothing
really. However, there are some concerns because if the ``BASEPRI`` is
used to disable interrupts then the ``SVCall`` exception must have the
highest priority: The ``BASEPRI`` register is set to disable all
interrupt except for the ``SVCall``.

The motivation for supporting nested interrupts is, presumably, to make
sure that certain high priority interrupts are not delayed by lower
processing interrupt handling. Since the ``SVCall`` exception has
highest priority, it will delay all other interrupts (but, of course,
disabling interrupt also delays all other interrupts).

The PendSV exception is another mechanism offered by the Cortex
architecture. It has been suggested that some of these issues with the
``SVCall`` exception could be avoided by using the PendSV interrupt. The
architecture that would use the PendSV exception instead of the
``SVCall`` interrupt is not clear in my mind. But I will keep this note
here for future reference if this were to become as issue.

What Could Go Wrong?
====================

Whenever you deal with logic at software hardware interface, lots of
things can go wrong. But, aside from that general risk, the only
specific NuttX risk issue is that you may uncover some subtle interrupt
level logic that assumes that interrupts are already disabled. In those
cases, additional critical sections may be needed inside of the
interrupt level processing. The likelihood of such a thing is probably
pretty low, but cannot be fully discounted.