- l4-hackers - example.com Site

Re: L4-Linux worked on 486!
by Michael Hohmuth 15 Aug '99

15 Aug '99

Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo(a)rano.demon.co.uk> writes: > From what you wrote, it sounds like the problem could be solved in > either of two ways: > > - make L4 priorities correspond to PIC priorities > - use a specific instead of a non-specific EOI That's correct. We went for the first solution (because AFAIK, the second one (specific EOI) is not allowed for the mode of the PIC we use -- the special fully nested mode --, or at least it not documented what happens when used in this mode). > Can either of these be implemented as a quick fix even if the long-term > solution is moving irq ack into the microkernel? I've done this already; what you've digged up is my implementation of the first solution: > I notice that linux22/arch/l4-i386/kernel/irq.c has: > > static const > /* prio for irq 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 */ > char irq_prio[] = {1, 0,15, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2,14,13,12,11,10, 9, 8, 7}; > > Can I change this? What to? > > My wild guess would be {15,14,13,4,3,2,1,0,12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5} ... > but there must be some reason for it being the way it is ... This array sorts the priority of the interrupt threads in the order of the hardware priorities. It reflects the priorities after they have been changed by programming the PIC in irq_init.cc: irq_t::init(). Jean already explained why this is the correct order: We have to make sure that IRQ8 (Fiasco's timer interrupt) has the highest priority (i.e., so that it always gets through even if other irqs are in service (i.e., haven't been acknowledged yet)), and that's why IRQ2, the cascade irq for the slave PIC (which hosts IRQ8) gets the highest priority on the master PIC. So, you shouldn't change this array. Now, to debug your problem (some irq's in-service flag is still set after we think we're acknowledged the irq), here are some tips: I suggest you try to find out if there are other irq threads which are in the ready queue and which have been preempted before they have acknowledged their interrupt. In an L4Linux setup, these threads are 5.10 to 5.20 (in hexadecimal task.lthread format, as understood by the built-in kernel debugger Jdb). Then we can try to understand why that thread has been preempted by walking up its kernel stack. Some random hints: In Jdb, you can use `r n' and `r p' to traverse the ready queue (mnemonics: ``ready next'', ``ready prev''). Look at a thread_t by typing something like `t 5.10'. For Gdb, .gdbinit has a macro which can be used like this: "tcb 5 0x10" prints thread's 5.10 thread_t. I've added a command `k p' to Jdb which prints out the state of the PICs. Maybe you can see something suspect there? You can switch back and forth between remote Gdb and Jdb by using "set jdb::use_nested = 0" in Gdb and by pressing `V s' in Jdb. (Of course, all this only works if you haven't completely disabled Jdb with the "-nojdb" command-line switch.) > > There was a long discussion about that and it looks like irq > > acknowledge will move to the micro kernel. > > Was this an e-mail discussion accessible to people like myself, or a > discussion in the coffee room in TU Dresden? An electronic coffee room meant for L4 implementors on various architectures (a private mailing list hosted by USNW). Do you think that more of the internal kernel-design-and-interface discussion should take place in public? If so, we might try to pursuade the other members of that other mailing list to move more of their discussions here. Michael -- hohmuth(a)innocent.com, hohmuth(a)inf.tu-dresden.de http://home.pages.de/~hohmuth/

2 1

Re: L4-Linux worked on 486!
by Michael Hohmuth 12 Aug '99

12 Aug '99

edmundo(a)rano.demon.co.uk writes: > Jochen Liedtke asked, and I think it's a crucial question: > > > are the interrupts constantly disabled from raising the interrupt > >until executing that code? > > Looking at the code, I think the answer is yes. (There is, however, > quite a lot of code between the interrupt happening and the > non-specific EOI being issued, and there are lots of macros and > conditional compilations, so I might be wrong. Unfortunately, you are wrong: Fiasco likes to enable interrupts (because it is a real-time kernel), and there is no guaranty at all that irqs will remain disabled until the EOI is issued (even if the irq thread enters the kernel with interrupts disabled). > Is it possible to inspect the state of the interrupt-disable flag > using remote gdb?) Yes, with "info registers" (or "i r" for short). But when you're in the debugger, it will be too late. > In which case I no longer understand what Jean Wolter wrote about > priority assignment to interrupt threads. If interrupts are > constantly disabled from raising the interrupt until the > non-specific EOI, how can the priorities matter? If the PIC can > "deliver" an interrupt with higher priority while interrupts are > disabled, It can't. > and if the non-specific EOI then acknowledges the highest-priority > interrupt that was delivered, It doesn't, in the sense of "deliver" you defined above. > as opposed to the hightest-priority interrupt that is being > serviced, then we are always in trouble if we issue a non-specific > EOI with interupts disabled. In this case, should we reenable > interrupts before doing the EOI? > > But I can't think why the PIC should have been designed this way. It isn't. Unspecific EOI acknowledges the latest irq that has been accepted by the CPU, and if the CPU is in "cli" mode, it will not accept an irq no matter what its hardware priority in the PIC is. So, given that the CPU operates in "cli" mode, hardware priorities don't matter. But it doesn't operate in "cli" mode at all times. And even if it would, there are problems with the irq threads' software priorities: Unlike L4/x86, Fiasco doesn't deliver an irq-IPC message to an interrupt thread if there is a different thread with a higher priority; instead, the irq ``sender'' is blocked and queued in the irq thread's sender queue. This can lead to a thread different from the irq thread being scheduled and, as a consequence, to interrupts being enabled in the CPU ("sti" mode). > [...] > To reconcile this, I am lead to conclude that my inspection of the > code is mistaken, interrupts are not disabled constantly from raising > the interrupt until issuing the EOI, and this is deliberately so, This is correct. > but somehow we are ending up in the wrong interrupt thread after a > higher-priority interrupts interrupts a lower-priority one. Yep. Maybe some event or IPC caused an lower-priority irq thread to be scheduled before a higher-priority irq thread could acknowledge its irq. > I'm really out of my depth here. Can anyone recommend a good book, or > other source of information, about x86 and PIC programming? (I don't > need an introduction to assembler programming, as I did a lot of 6502 > and 8080 as a child, but I don't know much about x86 specifics or > about interrupt details.) I don't know of any good book describing PIC programming. The best reference I could find was a specification of the ``legacy interrupt controller'' for the PowerPC CHRP platform (which probably emulates the PIC's interface for old x86-PC hardware). But this is only a specification and not a programming manual. Among other places, it's available in Chapter 4 of <URL: ftp://ftp.austin.ibm.com/pub/technology/spec/chrp/inwork/CHRP_IORef_1.0.pdf>. You might also want to try doing a websearch on "programmable interrupt controller programming" or somesuch; I just did a quick search, and <URL:http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/8302/interupt.htm> seems to be a nice intro, but it doesn't discuss the special fully nested mode Fiasco uses. A search on "special fully nested mode" brought up a description of a PCI bridge containing PIC functionality at <URL:http://www.intel.com/design/intarch/techinfo/430tx/ticTOC.htm>. Michael -- hohmuth(a)innocent.com, hohmuth(a)inf.tu-dresden.de http://home.pages.de/~hohmuth/

1 0

Re: L4-Linux worked on 486!
by Michael Hohmuth 12 Aug '99

12 Aug '99

edmundo(a)rano.demon.co.uk writes: > L4-Linux is running quite nicely for me now, but I can still crash it > by doing cksum /usr/bin/* over CVS. It dies after saying "irq still > active". (To get that message I'm using the patch that Michael Hohmuth > posted to the list on July 25.) > > I think I may have found a bug in the SANITY code in > linux22/arch/l4-i386/kernel/irq.c, by the way. [...] > This is what I did to linux22/arch/l4-i386/kernel/irq.c: > > In timer_irq_thread(), I moved > > #ifdef SANITY > irqs_in_progress &= ~(1 << TIMER_IRQ); > #endif > > from its present position just before the call to > l4_i386_ipc_receive() to just before the call to > execute_bottom_halves(). This got rid of the "irq active" messages > which I think are spurious. > > Sorry for the lack of patch but I've rather lost control of the > versions of that file ... My patch you mentioned already contains a similar change... Can you send my (in private email) the output of "cvs diff irq.c" (before you do "cvs update")? Anyway, I've now checked in my sanity-checking changes in linux22/arch/l4-i386/kernel/irq.c. I suggest you use that version for testing. > What I have been doing is telling GDB "symbol-file .../vmlinux" to > inspect what's happening in Linux, then "symbol-file .../kernel.image" > to go back to inspecting Fiasco. There's probably some way of defining > macros to make that switching a bit easier. I don't know if GDB could > use both sets of symbols at the same time. Me neither. > (This is a bit off topic, but does anyone know a better solution to > this one? I tell GDB "p spong" and get a value that is totally wrong. > This is because the variable has been optimised into a register. So to > find out its value I use "disassemble" and "info registers". Is there > a quicker way?) Unfortunately, no, AFAIK. Michael -- hohmuth(a)innocent.com, hohmuth(a)sax.de http://www.sax.de/~hohmuth/

1 0

L4-Linux worked on 486!
by suzukis＠file.phys.tohoku.ac.jp 05 Aug '99

05 Aug '99

Hi, Just I could boot L4-Linux and execute "ls" etc on 486, without rebooting. At present, it seems that Fiasco must be recent version, but the version of L4-Linux does not matter. Both of the previous snapshot (L4-Linux 2.0.21) and the anonymous CVS version (linux22 which I checked out July/26) are working. I remember, after the announcement of linux22 availability via CVS, I experienced several 486 rebooting caused by "ls". So I will continue to search the critical point. After several trying of remote debug, I think "kernel"-debugger is not so much powerful to detect how L4-Linux "server" breaks down. It's not easy for me to understand what happens in the server program from the system calls. Therefore, now I'm looking for a remote-debug-stub for server program on Fiasco. The document of the OSKit tells that the debug-stub in the OSKit is easy to re-use for user-spaced programs, I will try. But there's any working debug-stub? suzuki P.S. By the way, wait_for_keypress() (linux22/drivers/char/tty_io.c) of the latest linux22 works well? It is called when mounting the root filesystem on floppy, or on ramdisk loaded via floppy, like: printk(KERN_NOTICE "VFS: Insert root floppy and press ENTER\n"); wait_for_keypress(); (from linux/fs/super.c). In my testing, the latest linux22 is killed when it calls wait_for_keypress(). But the previous snapshot of L4-Linux (2.0.21) safely passes wait_for_keypress(). The message from the debugger (when linux22 is killed) is like this: grub> kernel=(fd0)/rmgr -nopentium -configfile -sigma0 [Multiboot-elf, <0x100000:0x20320:0x0>,<0x121320:0x418:0x26dac>,entry=0x100000] grub> module=(fd0)/main -nokdb -nojdb [Multiboot-module @ 0x149000, 0x24200 bytes] grub> module=(fd0)/sigma0 [Multiboot-module @ 0x16e000, 0xcb26 bytes] grub> module=(fd0)/rmgr.cfg [Multiboot-module @ 0x17b000, 0x56d bytes] grub> module=(fd0)/glinux.gz init=/bin/sh root=/dev/fd1 [Multiboot-module @ 0x17c000, 0xe428 bytes] RMGR: loading task (fd0)/glinux.gz init=/bin/sh root=/dev/fd1 from 0x17c000-0x260238 to [ 0x3ff000-0x4b2170 0x4b4000-0x4fe034 ] RMGR: starting task (fd0)/glinux.gz init=/bin/sh root=/dev/fd1 from 0x17c000-0x260238 at entry 0x3ff000 via trampoline page code 0x26114c [...snip...] VFS: Insert root floppy and press ENTER Dump of trap_state at 0xc0141fb4: EAX 00000000 EBX 00000001 ECX 004e1646 EDX 00000001 ESI 00000000 EDI 00000000 EBP 00000000 ESP 00d05f5c EIP 00000003 EFLAGS 00013a92 CS 0023 SS 002b DS 002b FS 002b GS 002b trapno 6, error 00000000, from user mode

3 7

Re: L4-Linux worked on 486!
by Jean Wolter 03 Aug '99

03 Aug '99

Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo(a)rano.demon.co.uk> writes: > > Thanks for your reply. > > >From what you wrote, it sounds like the problem could be solved in > either of two ways: > > - make L4 priorities correspond to PIC priorities > - use a specific instead of a non-specific EOI > > Can either of these be implemented as a quick fix even if the long-term > solution is moving irq ack into the microkernel? > > I notice that linux22/arch/l4-i386/kernel/irq.c has: > > static const > /* prio for irq 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 */ > char irq_prio[] = {1, 0,15, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2,14,13,12,11,10, 9, 8, 7}; > > Can I change this? What to? It looks like Michael already changed that. The PIC is programmed with irq8 at the highest priority (thats the timer used by L4) and the threads have the same priority. So if you still have problems you should discuss this with Michael. He is currently not in Dresden but IIRC he will be back next week. Jean -- I get up each morning, gather my wits. Pick up the paper, read the obits. if I'm not there I know I'm not dead. So I eat a good breakfast and go back to bed. Peete Seeger

1 0

Re: L4-Linux worked on 486!
by Jean Wolter 03 Aug '99

03 Aug '99

edmundo(a)rano.demon.co.uk writes: > > > >It dies after saying "irq still active". > > >(To get that message I'm using the patch that Michael Hohmuth > > > posted to the list on July 25.) > > > I think I may have found a bug in the SANITY code in > > > linux22/arch/l4-i386/kernel/irq.c, by the way. See below. > > > > I remember, I've ever seen same message & following crash, > > thanks for the patch. > > Unfortunately I still don't understand why the irq is "still active". The problem is the following: Normally the pic only forwards one interrupt to the CPU and signals the next one after the current interrupt has been acknowledged. L4 uses a special PIC mode ("special fully nested mode" or something similar), that allows the pic to signal more than one interrupt to the CPU. It uses priorities to decide whether a newly arrived interrupt should be forwarded to the CPU. So it is possible that more than one interrupt is delivered to the CPU before the interrupt handler was able to acknowledge its own interrupt. If we use "unspecific end of interrupt" to acknowledge the interrupt we acknowledge the one with the highest priority. > > Here's the corresponding bit of code in irq.c. (The lines which aren't > indented as much as they should be came from Michael's debugging > patch.) > > > mask = 1 << (irq & 7); > if (irq < 8) > { > outb(inb(0x21) | mask, 0x21); /* block the irq */ > outb(0x20, 0x20); /* acknowledge the irq */ We use unspecific end of interrupt to acknowledge the irq. > > outb(0x0B, 0x20); > if (inb(0x20) & mask) > enter_kdebug("irq still active"); Now we read the "in service register" of the pic and find out that our interrupt is still active. Due to fiasco being preemptive and a wrong priority assignment to our interrupt threads it happened that a thread with a higher L4 priority which handled an irq with a lower pic priority accidently acknowledged the wrong interrupt. > If you look at the bottom of kernel/fiasco/src/irq.h you'll find an > unused function irq_ack() which does roughly the same thing, because > acknowleding the IRQ is something that ought to be done by L4/Fiasco, > but is at present done by Linux. > > So why do we get "irq still active" during heavy use of the network > card? Is there a PIC expert in the house? I hope the explanation above was clear enough :) > > Is it possible that the problem is caused by the interrupt not being > acknowledged quickly enough? If so, maybe I should move the ack from > Linux into Fiasco ... There was a long discussion about that and it looks like irq acknowledge will move to the micro kernel. Jean -- I get up each morning, gather my wits. Pick up the paper, read the obits. if I'm not there I know I'm not dead. So I eat a good breakfast and go back to bed. Peete Seeger

2 1

Re: any documents for remote debug newbies?
by Michael Hohmuth 23 Jul '99

23 Jul '99

suzukis(a)file.phys.tohoku.ac.jp writes: > I was reading the manpage of L4 (telling "-comspeed" as the option > for rmgr) and not of Fiasco (telling it as for main). I was wondering > why rmgr does not understand options like "-comspeed", "-comport". I think the Rmgr manual tells you to apply the "-comspeed" option to the L4 kernel binary (grubboot.img, or, in our case, main) -- at least, that's what it should tell you. It probably need to be made less confusing. Michael -- hohmuth(a)innocent.com, hohmuth(a)sax.de http://www.sax.de/~hohmuth/

1 0

Re: recent GAS and l4/kernel/fiasco/src/entry.S
by Michael Hohmuth 23 Jul '99

23 Jul '99

OKUJI Yoshinori <okuji(a)kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp> writes: > From: suzukis(a)file.phys.tohoku.ac.jp > > If I change the register name from "%dl" to "%edx" in the entry.S > > (leaving the opcode "bt" as it is), the recent GAS could assemble it. > > Anybody found such behaviour? My GAS is broken? > > The code "bt $2, %dl" is invalid. The bit test call only accepts > 16bits and 32bits registers, so that should be "btw $2, %dx" or "btl > %2, %edx". Thanks; I've fixed this in the CVS version now. Michael -- hohmuth(a)innocent.com, hohmuth(a)inf.tu-dresden.de http://home.pages.de/~hohmuth/

1 0

Re: any documents for remote debug newbies?
by Michael Hohmuth 22 Jul '99

22 Jul '99

suzukis(a)file.phys.tohoku.ac.jp writes: > As Edmund reported previously, also I found that L4-Linux (2.0.21) > could boot but not work well on my 486 PC (of course, I added > -nopentium option for rmgr). However, same kit (fiasco/rmgr/sigma0 > /glinux) works well on Pentium PC. I fixed some fatal 486-related bugs last night (alas, I didn't have an 486 to test with earlier). L4Linux 2.2 can now boot multi-user on Fiasco on my 486. This version currently is only available from remote CVS. I hope to get to making some new snapshots soon, as L4Linux 2.2 now is quite stable on Fiasco. Michael -- hohmuth(a)innocent.com, hohmuth(a)sax.de http://www.sax.de/~hohmuth/

3 2

Re: any documents for remote debug newbies?
by suzukis＠file.phys.tohoku.ac.jp 21 Jul '99

21 Jul '99

Michael points out: >>Just I've tried by adding "-comspeed 9600" option to rmgr, also > ^^^^ >"-comspeed 9600" is not an Rmgr option but an option for the Fiasco >kernel, like this: (slightly edited from my menu.lst) I see! Adding the option to the Fiasco kernel, GDB successfully connects to the target PC. Sooner I will check the revised Fiasco. I was reading the manpage of L4 (telling "-comspeed" as the option for rmgr) and not of Fiasco (telling it as for main). I was wondering why rmgr does not understand options like "-comspeed", "-comport".

1 0