If a spinlock is held in the process context. What will happen if the same spinlock is required in an interrupt context?
Either the interrupt handler wait until the spinlock is released by the process, or the interrupt handler will schedule it on another processor? As mentioned in the following thread in stackoverflow.
How does Kernel handle the lock in process context when an interrupt comes?
But still the question will be the same, the interrupt handler will wait for the spinlock to be released? Isn't it?
If a spinlock is held in the process context. What will happen if the
same spinlock is required in an interrupt context?
In short, this is a bad design and will lead to deadlock. That's why there are APIs spin_lock_irq/spin_lock_irqsave that disable the interrupts before acquiring such locks and avoids such contentions.
Related
Why sleeping or blocking not allowed in interrupt handler.
Assume i have following setup.
Single core system.
Developing a bare-metal application using FreeRTOS.
There are many FreeRTOS APIs which cannot be called from ISR context as they may block waiting for
events to occur. So this means we cannot put the ISR in blocked state.
If you block in an interrupt handler, it can commonly not be triggered again. And all other interrupts of same and lower priority, and the non-interrupt part of your program are blocked, too.
Final line: don't do it.
When exactly signal will start execution in unix ?Does the signal will be processed when system turns into kernel mode? or immediately when it is receives signal? I assume it will be processed immediate when it receives.
A signal is the Unix mechanism for allowing a user space process to receive asynchronous notifications. As such, signals are always "delivered by" the kernel. And hence, it is impossible for a signal to be delivered without a transition into kernel mode. Therefore it doesn't make sense to talk of a process "receiving" a signal (or sending one) without the involvement of the kernel.
Signals can be generated in different ways.
They can be generated by a device driver within the kernel (for example, tty driver in response to the interrupt, kill, or stop keys or in response to input or output by a backgrounded process).
They can be generated by the kernel in response to an emergent out-of-memory condition.
They can be generated by a processor exception in response to something the process itself does during its execution (illegal instruction, divide by zero, reference an illegal address).
They can be generated directly by another process (or by the receiving process itself) via kill(2).
SIGPIPE can be generated as a result of writing to a pipe that has no reader.
But in every case, the signal is delivered to the receiving process by the kernel and hence through a kernel-mode transition.
The kernel might need to force that transition -- pre-empt the receiving process -- in order to deliver the signal (for example, in the case of a CPU-bound process running on processor A being sent a signal by a different process running on processor B).
In some cases, the signal may be handled for the process by the kernel itself (for example, with SIGKILL -- or several others when no signal handler is configured).
Actually invoking a process' signal handler is done by manipulating the process' user space stack so that the signal handler is invoked on return from kernel-mode and then, if/when the signal handler procedure returns, the originally executing code can be resumed.
As to when it is processed, that is subject to a number of different factors.
There are operating system (i.e. kernel) operations that are never interrupted by signals (these are generally relatively short duration operations), in which case the signal will be processed after their completion.
The process may have temporarily blocked signal delivery, in which case the signal will be "pending" until it is unblocked.
The process could be swapped out or non-runnable for any of a number of reasons -- in which case, its signal handler cannot be invoked until the process is runnable again.
Resuming the process in order to deliver the signal might be delayed by interrupts and higher priority tasks.
A signal will be immediately detected by the process which receives it.
Depending on the signal type, the process might treat it with the default handler, might ignore it or might execute a custom handler. It depends a lot on what the process is and what signal it receives. The exception is the kill signal (9) which is treated by the kernel and terminates the execution of the process which was supposed to receive it.
I've set up a signal handler in my main thread. A separate thread then sends my main thread this signal. My signal handler is being called appropriately, but I'm not sure what the 'State' of the main thread is at this point, and whether it can be recovered. basically, my main thread was blocked on a read() call, and a different thread has sent it a signal due to an extraordinary event. I thus want the read() call to fail (EINTR?), hence my other thread sending the main thread this signal.
It depends on how you installed the signal handler. If the signal handler was installed using sigaction() and without specifying the SA_RESTART flag, then the read() will fail with EINTR if it has not transferred any data yet.
In general, the thread that has handled a signal can continue normally after the signal handler returns. That's really the whole point.
Remember though, that the signal might have arrived just after the read() had successfully returned, too - or worse, just before you called read() (in which case the read() will still block).
I have a process which is already in signal handler , and called a process blocking call. What will happen if one more signal arrives for this process ?
By default signals don't block each other. A signal only blocks itself during its own delivery. So, in general, an handling code can be interrupted by another signal delivery.
You can control this behavior by setting the process signal mask relatively to each signal delivery. This means that you can block (or serialize) signal delivery. For instance you can declare that you accept to be interrupted with signal S1 while handling signal S2, but not the converse...
Remember that signal delivery introduces some concurrency into your code, so controlling the blocking is needed.
I'm pretty sure signals are blocked while a handler is being executed, but I'm having a hard time finding something that says that definitively.
Also, you may wish to see this question - some of the answers talk about what functions you should and shouldn't call from a signal handler.
In general, you should consider a signal handler like an interrupt handler - do the very least you can in the handler, and return quickly.
Why can't malloc be used in signal handlers? What can "happen wrong"?
A signal handler can be called at any time, including during times when another call to malloc is in progress. If this happens, one of two things will occur:
Your process will deadlock inside the signal handler, because malloc will be unable to acquire the heap lock.
Your process will corrupt its heap, because malloc does acquire the lock (or doesn't think it needs it), then proceeds to render the heap inconsistent, leading to a later crash.