Embedded Computing
|
Please look around yourself. You
can see many products included embedded computing systems inside themselves:
VCR’s, digital watches, elevators, automobiles and automobile engines,
thermostats, industrial control equipment, scientific and medical instruments,
aircrafts and many other. Millions and millions of them are around yourself,
each minute making their computations. People use the term embedded system to
mean any computer system hidden in any of these products.
Software for embedded
systems must handle many problems beyond those found in application software
for desktop or mainframe computers. Embedded systems often have several
things to do at once. For example think that your are waiting for guests
invited to your birthday and to your own flat (in cold and windy winter time)
which has one door. What are you doing? Listening for the door bell. When the
doorbell starts ringing, it is a signal for you to open the door for your
guests. This is simple. Now think, that you live in a big house with many entrances
and doors, suitable for your guests to come in. In this case if there is a
doorbell ringing, you start your quick way to the relevant door. So far this
is still simple. But lets assume, that two doorbells ring at the same time?
Which way to run? The closest? May be. Another quests will wait. No problem
so far. But if you have three doors? If your quests can wait, you must simply
run more quickly. But if there must be your favorite quest among all of them
(let say a queen of England) and she cant wait, what will you do?
One solution would be to
give her an invitation to go through the main door and if the main doorbell
is ringing, in spite of all, run to open the main door. In this case the
queen will wait the minimum possible time. But if this time is definitely
described (let say 10 seconds for the queen) and you are alone in your house.
So just in the time, when the queen rings the doorbell, you are in the far
part of your house? Still a problem?
Although this stuff seems to
be not very serious as in the case of your house, but lets study the case of
the aircraft like Boeing or Airbus. Thousands of doorbells and all of them
are important. In such a case the maximum possible reaction time is very
critical and to make a good peace of software for such kind of applications
is not a trivial task. In computing we call the doorbell as
-"interrupt" and the time you need to open the door is the
"reaction time" of the operating system. In embedded computing we
have similar problems to the described above. But we have a solution – real
time operating systems or RTOS in the other way. Despite of similar name,
most real time operating systems are rather different from desktop machine
operating systems such as Windows or Unix. There are several main differences.
|
|
The basic building block of
software written under an RTOS is the task. Tasks are very simple to write:
under most RTOSs a task is simply a subroutine. At some point in your
program, you snake one or more calls to a function in the RTOS that starts
tasks, telling it which subroutine is the starting point for each task and
some other parameters that we’ll discuss later, such as the tasks priorityt
where the RTOS should find memory for the task’s stack, and so on.
Most RTOSs allow you to have as
many tasks as you could reasonably want. Each task in an RTOS is always in
one of three states:
1. Running - which means that the microprocessor is executing
the instructions that make up this task. Unless yours is a multiprocessor
system, there is only one microprocessor, and hence only one task that is in
the running state at any given time.
2. Ready - which means that some other task is in the running
state but that this task has things that it could do if the microprocessor
becomes available. Any number of tasks can be in this state.
3. Blocked -which means that this task hasn’t got anything to do
right now, even if the microprocessor becomes available.
Tasks get into this state because
they are waiting for some external event. For example, a task that handles
data coming in from a network will have nothing to do when there is no data.
A task that responds to the user when he presses a button has nothing to do
until the user presses the button. Any number ol tasks can be in this state
as well. Most RTOSs seem to proffer a double handful of other task states.
Included among the offerings are suspended, pended, waiting, dormant, and
delayed. These usually just amount to fine distinctions among various
subcategories of the blocked and ready states listed earlier. Here we’ll lump
all task states into running, ready, and blocked.
You can find out how these
three states correspond with those of your RTOS by reading the manual that
comes with it.
The
Scheduler
A part of the RTOS called
the scheduler keeps track of the state of each task and decides which one
task should go into the running state. Unlike the scheduler in Unix or
Windows, the schedulers in most RTOSs are entirely simpleminded about which
task should get the processor: they look at priorities you assign to the
tasks, and among the tasks that are not in the blocked state, the one with
the highest priority runs, and the rest of them wait in the ready state.
The scheduler will not
fiddle with task priorities: if a high-priority task hogs the microprocessor
for a long time while lower-priority tasks are waiting in the ready state,
that’s too bad. The lower-priority tasks just have to wait; the scheduler
assumes that you knew what you were doing when you set the task priorities.
Here we’ll adopt the fairly common use of the verb block to mean “move into
the blocked stat ", the verb run to mean “move into the running
state" or “be in the running state", and the verb switch to mean
“change which task is in the running state". A task will only block
because it decides for itself that it has run out of things to do. Other
tasks in the system or the scheduler cannot decide for a task that it needs
to wait for something. As a consequence of this, a task has to be running
just betbre it is blocked: it has to execute the instructions that figure out
that theres nothing more to do. While a task is blocked, it never gets
the microprocessor. Therefore, an interrupt routine or some other task in the
system must be able to signal that whatever the task was waiting for has happened.
Otherwise, the task will be blocked forever.
The shuffling of tasks between the
ready and running states is entirely the work of the scheduler. Tasks can
block themselves, and tasks and interrupt routines can move other tasks from
the blocked state to the ready state, but the scheduler has control over the
running state. (Of course, if a task is moved from the blocked to the ready
state and has higher priority than the task that is running, the scheduler
will move it to the running state immediately. We can argue about whether the
task was ever really in the ready state at all, but this is a semantic
argument. The reality is that some part of the application had to do
something to the task - move it out of the blocked state - and then the
scheduler had to make a decision).
Here are answers to some common
questions about the scheduler and task states:
- How does the scheduler know when a
task has become blocked or unblocked?
The RTOS provides a collection of
functions that tasks can call to tell the scheduler what events they want to
wait for and to signal that events have happened. We’ll be discussing these
functions later on.
- What happens if all the tasks are
blocked?
lf all the tasks are blocked, then
the scheduler will spin in some tight loop somewhere inside of the RTOS,
waiting for something to happen. If nothing ever happens, then that’s your
fault. You must make sure that something happens sooner or later by having an
interrupt routine that calls some RTOS function that unblocks a task.
Otherwise, your software will not be doing very much.
- What two tasks with the same
priority are ready?
The answer to this is all
over the map, depending upon which RTOS you use. At least one system solves
this problem by making it illegal to have two tasks with the same priority.
Some other RTOSs will time slice between two such tasks. Some will run on of
them until it blocks and then run the other. In this case, which of the two tasksit
runs also depends upon the particular RTOS.
-
If one task is running and another, higher priority task unblocks, does the
task that is running get stopped and moved to the ready state right away?
A preemptive RTOS will stop
a lower-priority task as soon as the higher-priority task unblocks. A
nonpreemptive RTOS will only take the microprocessor away from the
lower-priority task when that task blocks.
|
|
Each task has its own private
context, which includes the register values, a program counter, and a stack.
However, all other data - g1obal, static, initialized, uninitialized, and
everything else - is shared among all of the tasks in the system. The RTOS
typically has its own private data structures, which are not available to any
of the tasks. Since you can share data variables among tasks, it is easy to
move data from one task to another: the two tasks need only have access to
the same variables.
You can easily accomplish this by
having the two tasks in the same module in which the variables are declared,
or you can make the variables public in one of the tasks and declare them
extern in the other.
Shared
– Data Problems
If we have two tasks sharing the
same data, it could happen that one of this tasks will read the half-changed
data.
Reentrancy
Reentrant functions are
functions that can be called by more than one task and that will always work
correctly even if the RTOS switches from one task to another in the middle of
executing the function.
You apply three rules to
decide if a function is reentrant:
1. A reentrant function may
not use variables in a nonatomic way unless they are stored on the stack of
the task that called. the function or are otherwise the private variables of
that task.
2. A reentrant function may not
call any other functions that are not themselves reentrant.
3. A reentrant function may not
use the hardware in a nonatomic way.
To better understand reentrancy,
and in particular rule l above, you must first understand where the C
compiler will store variables. If you are a C language guru, you can skip the
following discussion of where variables are stored in memory. If not, review
your knowledge of C by examining the example and answering these questions:
Which of the variables are stored on the stack and which in a fixed location
in memory? What about the string literal “Where does this string go?” What
about the data pointed to by vPointer? By parm_ptr?
static int static_int;
int public_int;
int initialized = 4;
char *string = “Where does
this string go?”;
void *vPointer;
void function (int parm, int
*parm_ptr)
{
static int static_local;
int local;
. . .
}
Here are the answers:
static_int - is in a fixed location in memory and is therefore
shared by any task that happens to call function.
public_int - Ditto. The only differenice be-tween static_int
and public_int is that functions in other C files can access public_int, but
they cannot access static_int.(This means, of course, that it is even harder
to be sure that this variable is not used by multiple tasks, since it might
be used by any function in any module anywhere in the-system.)
initialized - The same. The initial value makes no difference to
where the variable is stored.
string - The same.
“Where
does this string go?" -
Also the same.
vPointer - The pointer itself is in a fixed location in memory and
is therefore a shared variable. If function uses or changes the data values
pointed to by vPointer, then those data values are also shared among any
tasks that happen to call function.
parm - is on the stack. If more than one task calls
function, parm will be in a different location for each, because each task
has its own stack. No matter how many tasks call function, the variable parm
will not be a problem.
parm_ptr - is on the stack. Therefore, function can do
anything to the value of parm_ptr without causing trouble. However, if
function uses or changes the values of whatever is pointed to by parm_ptr,
then we have to ask where that data is stored before we know whether we have
a problem. We can’t answer that question just by looking at the code in lf we
look at the code that calls function and can be sure that every task will
pass a diderent value for parm_ptr, then all is well. If two tasks might pass
in the same value for parm_ptr, then there might be trouble.
static_local - is in a fixed location in memory. The only
difference between this and static_int is that static_int can be used by
other functions in the same C file, whereas static_local can onlylbe used by
function.
local - is on the stack.
|
|
In the lasf section, we discussed
how the RTOS can cause a new class of shared - data problems by switching the
microprocessor from task to task and, like interrupts, changing the flow of
execution. The RTOS, however, also gives you some new tools with which to deal
with this problem. Semaphores are one such tool.
Back in the bad old days, the
railroad barons discovered that it was bad for business if their trains ran
into one another. Their solution to this problem was to use signals called
“semaphores.”
When the first train enters the
pictured section of track, the semaphore behind it automatically lowers. When
a second train arrives, the engineer notes the lowered semaphore, and he
stops his train and waits for the semaphore to rise; When the first train
leaves that section of trac, the semaphore rises, and the engineer on the
second train knows that it is safe to proceed on. There is no possibility of
the second train running into the first one.
The general idea of a semaphore in
an RTOS is similar to the idea of railroad semaphore. Trains do two things
with seniaphores. First, when train leaves the protected section of track, it
raises the semaphore. Second, when a train comes to a semaphore, it waits for
the semaphore to rise, if necessary, passes through the (now raised)
semaphore, and lowers the semaphore. The typical semaphore in an RTOS works
rnuch the same way. RTOS Semaphores Although the word was originally coined
for particular concept, the word semaphore is now on of the most slippery in
the embedded-systems world. It seems to mean almost as many different things
as there are software engineers, or at least as there are RTOSs.
Some RTOSs even have more than one
kind of semaphore. Also, no RTOS uses the terms raise and lower; they use get
and give, take and release, pend and post, p and v, wait and signal, and any
number of other combinations. We will use take (for lower) and release (for
raise). We’ll discuss first kind of semaphore most commonly called a binary
semaphore, which is the kind most similar to the railroad semaphore; we’ll
mention a few variations-below.
A typical RTOS binary semaphore
works like this: tasks can call two RTOS functions, TakeSemaphore and
ReleaseSemaphore. If one task has called TakeSemaphore to take the semaphore
and has not called ReleaseSemaphore to release it, then any other task that
calls TakeSemaphore will block until the first task calls ReleaseSemaphore.
Only one task can have the semaphore at a time.
Multiple
Semaphores
All the semaphore functions take a
parameter that identifies the semaphore that is being initialized, lowered,
or raised. Since most RTOSs allow you to have as many semaphores as you like,
each call to the RTOS must identify the semaphore on which to operate. The
semaphores are all independent of one another: if one task takes semaphore A,
another task can take semaphore B without blocking. Similarly, if one task is
waiting for semaphore C, that task will still be blocked even if some other
task releases semaphore D.
What’s the advantage of having
multiple semophores? Whenever a task takes a semaphore, it is potentially
slowing the response of any other task that needs the same semaphore. In a
system with only one semaphore, if the lowest-priority task takes the
semaphore to change data in a shared array, the highest - priority task might
block waiting for that semaphore, even if the highest-priority task wants to
modify any other data and couldn’t care less about a data in a shared array.
By having one semaphore protect the data in a shared array and different
semaphore to protect other shared data, you can build your system so the
highest priority task can modify it’s data even if the lowest priority task
has taken the semaphore protecting it’s shared data.
Different semaphores can
correspond to different shared resources. How does the RTOS know which
semaphore protects which data? It doesn’t. If you are using multiple
semaphores, it is up to' you to remember which semaphore corresponds to which
data. A task that is modifying one share data must take the corresponding
semaphore. You must decide what shared data each of your semaphores protects.
|
|
Another common use of semaphores
is as a simple way to communicate from one task to another or from an
interrupt routine to a task. For example, suppose that the task that formats
printed reports builds those reports into a fixed memory buffer. Suppose also
that the printer interrupts after each line, and that the printer interrupts
routine feeds the next line to the printer each time it interrupts. In such a
system, after formatting one report into the fixed buffer, the task must wait
until the interrupt routine has finished printing that report before it can
format the next report. One way to accomplish this fairly easily is to have the
task wait for a semaphore after it has formatted each report. The interrupt
routine signals the task when the report has been fed to the printer by
releasing the semaphore; when the task gets the semaphore and unblocks, it
knows that it can format the next report. Most RTOSs allow you to initialize
semaphores in this way. When the task formats the first report and tries to
take the semaphore, it blocks. The interrupt routine will release the
semaphore and thereby unblock the task when the report is printed.
Semaphore
Problems
When first reading about
semaphores, it is very tempting to conclude that they represent the solutions
to all of our shared data problems. This is not true. In fact, your systems
will probably work better, the fewer times you have to use semaphores. The
problem is that semaphores work only if you use them perfectly, and there are
no guarantees that you (or your- coworkers) will do that. There are any
numbers of tried – and - true ways to mess up with semaphores:
Forgetting
to take the semaphore. Semaphores
only work if every task that accesses the shared data, for read or for write,
uses the semaphore. If anybody forgets, then the RTOS may switch away from
the code that forgot to take the semaphore and cause an ugly shared-data bug
.
Forgetting
to release the semaphore. If any
task fails to release the semaphore, then every other task that ever uses the
semaphore will sooner or later block waiting to take that semaphore and will
be blocked forever.
Taking
the wrong semaphore. If you
are using multiple semaphores, then taking the wrong one is as bad as
forgetting to take one.
Holding
a semaphore for too long. Whenever
one task takes a semaphore, every other task that subsequently wants that
semaphore has to wait until the semaphore is released. If one task takes the
semaphore and then holds it for too long, other tasks may miss rea1 - time
deadlines.
A particularly perverse instance
of this problem can arise if the RTOS switches from a low-priority task (call
it Task C) to a medium priority task (call it Task B) after Task C has taken
an semaphore. A high-priority task (call it Task A) that wants the semaphore
then has to wait until Task B gives up the microprocessor: Task C can’t
release the semaphore until it gets the microprocessor back. No matter how
carefully you code Task C, Task B can prevent Task C from releasing the
semaphore and can thereby hold up Task A indefinitely. This problem is called
priority inversion; some RTOSs resolve this problem with priority inheritance
- they temporarily boost the priority of Task C to that of Task A whenever
Task C holds the semaphore and Task A is waiting for it.
Semaphore
Variants
There are a number of different
kinds of semaphores. Here is an overview of some of the more common
variations:
Some systems offer semaphores that
can be taken multiple times. Essentially, such semaphores are integers;
taking them decrements the integer and releasing them increments the integer.
If a task tries to take the semaphore when the integer is equal to zero, then
the task will block. These semaphores are called counting semaphores, and
they were the original type of semaphore.
Some systems offer semaphores that
can be released only by the task that took them. These semaphores are useful
for the shared - data problem, but they cannot be used to communicate between
two tasks. Such semaphores are sometimes called resource semaphores or
resources.
Some RTOSs offer one kind of
semaphore that will automatically deal with the priority inversion problem
and another that will not. The former kind of semaphore commonly called a
mutex semaphore or mutex. (Other RTOSs offer semaphores that they call
mutexes but that do not deal with priority inversion.)
If several tasks are waiting for a
semaphore when it is released, systems vary as to which task gets to run.
Some systems will run the task that has been waiting longest; others will run
the highest - priority task that is waiting for the semaphore. Some systems
give you the choice.
Ways
to Protect Shared Data
We have discussed two ways to
protect shared data: disabling interrupts and using semaphores. There is a
third way that deserves at least a mention: disabling task switches. Most
RTOSs have two functions you can call, one to disable task switches and one
to reenable them after they’ve been disabled. As is easy to see, you can
protect shared data from an inopportune task switch by disabling task
switches while you are reading or writing the shared data.
Here’s a comparison of the three
methods of protecting shared data:
1. Disabling interrupts is the
most drastic in that it will affect the response times of all the interrupt
routines and of all other tasks in the system. (If you disable interrupts,
you also disable task switches, because the scheduler cannot get control of
the microprocessor to switch.) On the other hand, disabling interrupts has
two advantages. (1) It is the only method that works if your data is shared
between your task code and your interrupt routines. Interrupt routines are
not allowed to take semaphores, as we will discuss in the next chapter, and
disabling task switches does not prevent interrupts. (2) It is fast. Most
processors can disable or enable interrupts with a sing1e instruction; all of
the RTOS functions are many instructions long. If a task’s access to shared
data lasts only a short period of time - incrementing a single variable for
example - sometimes it is preferable to take the shorter hit on interrupt
service response than to take the longer hit on task response that you get
from using a semaphore or disabling task switches.
2. Taking semaphores is the most
targeted way to protect data, because it affects only those tasks that need
to take the same semaphore. The response times of interrupt routines and of
tasks that do not need the semaphore are unchanged. On the other hand,
semaphores do take up a certain amount of microprocessor time - albeit not
much in most RTOSs - and they will not work for interrupt routines.
3. Disabling task switches is
somewhere in between the two. It has no effect on interrupt routines, but it
stops response for all other tasks cold.
|
|
Tasks must be able to communicate
with one another to coordinate their activities or to share data. For
example, in the underground tank monitoring system the task that calculates
the amount of gas in the tanks must let other parts of the system know how
much gasoline there is. In Telegraph, the system we discussed earlier that
connects a serial-port printer to a network, the tasks that receive data on
the network must hand that data off to other tasks that pass the data on to
the printer or that determine responses to send on the network.
We also discussed using shared
data and semaphores to allow tasks to communicate with one another. In this
section we will discuss several other methods that most RTOSs other: queues,
mailboxes, and pipes.
Here’s a very simple example.
Suppose that we have two tasks, Task1 and Task2, each of which has a number
of high-priority, urgent things to do. Suppose also that from time to time
these two tasks discover error conditions that must be reported on a network,
a time consuming process. In order not to delay Task1 and Task2, it makes
sense to have a separate task, Errors Task that is responsible for reporting
the error conditions on the network. Whenever Task1 or Task2 discovers an
error, it reports that error to ErrorsTask and then goes on about its own
business. The error reporting process undertaken by ErrorsTask does not delay
the other tasks. An RTOS queue is the way to implement this design.
Some
Ugly Details.
As you’ve no doubt guessed, queues
are not quite simple. Here are some of the complications that you will have
to deal with in most RTOSs:
Most RTOSs require that you
initialize your queues before you use them, by calling a function provided
for this purpose. On some systems, it is also up to you to allocate the
memory that the RTOS will manage as a queue. As with semaphores, it makes
most sense to initialize queues in some code that is guaranteed to run before
any task tries to use them.
Since most RTOSs allow you to have
as many queues as you want, you pass an additional parameter to every queue
function: the identity of the queue to which you want to write or from which
you want to read. Various systems do this in various ways.
If your code tries to write to a
queue when the queue is full, the RTOS must either return an error to let you
know that the write operation failed (a more common RTOS behavior) or it must
block the task until some other task reads data from the queue and thereby
creates some space (a less common RTOS behavior). Your code must deal with
whichever of these behaviors your RTOS exhibits.
Many RTOSs include a function that
will read from a queue if there is any data and will return an error code if
not. This function is in addition to the one that will block your task if the
queue is empty.
The amount of data that the RTOS
lets you write to the queue in one call may not be exactly the amount that
you want to write. Many RTOSs are inflexible about this. One common RTOS
characteristic is to allow you to write onto a queue in one call the number
of bytes taken up by a void pointer.
Mailboxes
In general, mailboxes are much
like queues. The typical RTOS has functions to create, to write to, and to read
from mailboxes, and perhaps functions to check whether the mailbox contains
any messages and to destroy the mailbox if it is no longer needed. The
details of mailboxes, however, are different in different RTOSs.
Here are some of the variations
that you might see:
Although some RTOSs allow a
certain number of messages in each mailbox, a number that you can usually
choose when you create the mailbox, others allow only one message in a
mailbox at a time. Once one message is written to a mailbox under these
systems, the mailbox is full; no other message can be written to the mailbox
until the first one is read.
In some RTOSs, the number of
messages in each mailbox is unlimited. There is a limit to the total number
of messages that can be in all of the mailboxes in the system, but these
messages will be distributed into the individual mailboxes as they are
needed.
In some RTOSs, you can prioritize
mailbox messages. Higher-priority messages will be read before lower-priority
messages, regardless of the order in which they are written into the mailbox.
Pipes
Pipes are also much like queues.
The RTOS can create them, write to them, read from them, and so on. The
details of pipes, however, like the details of mailboxes and queues, vary
from RTOS to RTOS. Some variations you might see include the following:
Some RTOSs allow you to write
messages of varying lengths onto pipes (unlike mailboxes and queues, in which
the message length is typically fixed).
Pipes in some RTOSs are entirely
byte-oriented: if Task A writes 11 bytes to the pipe and then Task B writes
19 bytes to the pipe, then if Task C reads 14 bytes from the pipe, it will
get the 11 that Task A wrote plus the first 3 that Task B wrote. The other 16
that task B wrote remain in the pipe for whatever task reads from it next.
Some RTOSs use the standard C
library functions fread and fwrite to read from and write to pipes.
Which Should I Use?
Since queues, mailboxes, and pipes
vary so much from one RTOS to another, it is hard to give much universal
guidance about which to use in any given situation. When RTOS vendors design
these features, they must make the usual programming trade-off’s among
flexibility, speed, memory space, the length of time that interrupts must be
disabled within the RTOS functions, and so on. Most RTOS vendors describe
these characteristics in their documentation; read it to determine which of
the communications mechanisms best meets your requirements.
Pitfalls
Although queues, mailboxes, and
pipes can make it quite easy to share data among tasks, they can also make it
quite easy to insert bugs into your system. Here are a few tried-and-true
methods for making yourself some trouble:
Most RTOSs do not restrict which
tasks can read from or write to any given queue, mailbox, or pipe. Therefore,
you must ensure that tasks use the correct one each time. If some task writes
temperature data onto a queue read by a task expecting error codes, your
system will not work very well. This is obvious, but it is easy to mess up.
The RTOS cannot ensure that data
written onto a queue, mailbox, or pipe will be properly interpreted by the
task that reads it. If one task writes an integer onto the queue and another
task reads it and then treats it as a pointer, your product will not ship
until the problem is found and fixed.
Running out of space in queues,
mailboxes, or pipes is usually a disaster for embedded software. When one
task needs to pass data to another, it is usually not optional. Good
solutions to this problem are scarce. Often, the only workable one is to make
your queues, mailboxes, and pipes large enough in the first place.
Passing pointers from one task to
another through a queue, mailbox, or pipe is one of several ways to create
shared data inadvertently.
|
|
Most embedded systems must keep
track of the passage of time. To extend its battery life, the cordless
bar-code scanner must turn itself off after a certain number of seconds.
Systems with network connections must wait for acknowledgements to data that
they have sent and retransmit the data if an acknowledgement doesn’t show up
on time. Manufacturing systems must wait for robot arms to move or for motors
to come up to speed.One simple service that most RTOSs offer is a function
that delays a task for a period of time; that is, blocks it until the period
of time expires.
Questions
How do I know that the taskDelay function
takes a number of milliseconds as its parameter? You don’t. In fact, it
doesn’t. The taskDelay function in VxWorks, like the
equivalent delay function in most RTOSs, takes the number of system ticks as
its parameter. The length of time represented by each system tick is
something you can usually control when you set up the system.
How accurate are the delays
produced by taskDelay function? They are accurate to the
nearest system tick. The RTOS works by setting up a single hardware timer to
interrupt periodically, say, every millisecond, and bases all timings on that
interrupt. This timer is often called the heartbeat timer. For example, if
one of your tasks passes 3 totaskDelay, that task will block until the
heartbeat timer interrupts three times The first timer interrupt may come
almost immediately after the call to taskDelay or it may
come after just under one tick time or after any amount of time between those
two extremes. The task will therefore be blocked for a period of time that is
between just a hair more than two system ticks and just a hair less than
three.(Note that the task will unblock when the delay time expires; when it
will run depends as always upon what other, higher-priority tasks are
competing for the microprocessor at that time.)
How does the RTOS know how to set
up the timer hardware on my particular hardware? As we discussed earlier, it
is common for microprocessors used in embedded systems to have timers in
them. Since RTOSs, like other operating systems, are
microprocessor-dependent, the engineers writing the RTOS know what kind of
microprocessor the RTOS will run on and can therefore program the timer on
it. If you are using nonstandard timer hardware, then you may have to write
your own timer setup software and timer interrupt routine. The RTOS will have
an entry point for your interrupt routine to call every time the timer
expires. Many RTOS vendors provide board support packages or BSPs, which contain
driver software for common hardware components – such as timers - and
instructions and model code to help you write driver software for any special
hardware you are using.
What is a “normal" length for
the system tick? There really isn’t one. The advantage of a short system tick
is that you get accurate timings. The disadvantage is that the microprocessor
must execute the timer interrupt routine frequently. Since the hardware timer
that controls the system-tick usually runs all the time, whether or not any
task has requested timing services, a short system tick can decrease system
throughput quite considerably by increasing the amount of microprocessor time
spent in the timer interrupt routine. Real - time system designers must make
this trade-off.
What if my system needs extremely
accurate timing? You have two choices. One is to make the system tick short
enough that RTOS timings fit your definition of “extremely accurate”. The
second is to use a separate hardware timer for those timings that must be
extremely accurate. It is not uncommon to design an embedded system that uses
dedicated timers for a few accurate timings and uses the RTOS functions for
the many other timings that need not be so accurate. The advantage of the
RTOS timing functions is that one hardware timer times any number of
operations simultaneously.
Other
Timing Services
Most RTOSs offer an array of other
timing services, all of them based on the system tick. For example, most
allow you to limit how long a task will wait for a message from a queue or a
mailbox, how long a task will wait for a semaphore, and so on. Although these
services are occasionally useful, exercise some caution. For example, if you
set a time limit when your high - priority task attempts to get a semaphore
and if that time limit expires, then your task does not have the semaphore
and cannot access the shared data. Then you’ll have to write code to allow
your task to recover. Before writing this code which is likely to be
difficult, since your task needs to use the data but can’t - it may make
sense to ask whether there might not be a better design. If your
high-priority task is in such a hurry that it cannot wait for the semaphore,
perhaps it would make more sense to send instructions about using the shared
data through a mailbox to a lower-priority task and let the higher-priority
task get on with its other work.
A rather more useful service
offered by many RTOSs is to call the function of your choice after a given
number of system ticks. Depending upon the RTOS, your function may be called
directly from the timer interrupt service routine, or it may be called from a
special, high-priority task within the RTOS
|
|
Another service many RTOSs offer
is the management of events within the system. An event is essentially a
Boolean flag that tasks can set or reset and that other tasks can wait for.
For example, when the user pulls the trigger on the cordless bar-code scanner,
the task that turns on the laser scanning mechanism and tries to recognize
the bar-code must start. Events provide an easy way to do this: the interrupt
routine that runs when the user pulls the trigger sets an event for which the
scanning task is waiting. If you are familiar with the word “event" in
the context of regular operating systems, you can see that it means something
ditterent in the RTOS context.
Some
standard features of events are listed below:
More than one task can block
waiting for the same event, and the RTOS will unblock all of them (and run
them in priority order) when the event occurs. For example, if the radio task
needs to start warming up the radio when the user pulls the trigger, then
that task can also wait on the trigger-pull event.
RTOSs typically form groups of
events, and tasks can wait for any subset of events within the group. For
example, an event indicating that the user pressed a key on the scanner
keypad might be in the same group with the trigger-pull event. If the radio
task needs to wake up both for a key and for the trigger, it can do that. The
scanning task will wake up only for the trigger event.
Different RTOSs deal in different
ways with the issue of resetting an event after it has occurred and tasks
that were waiting for it have been unblocked. Some RTOSs reset events
automatically; others require that your task software do this. It is
important to reset events: if the trigger-pull event is not reset, for
example, then tasks that need to wait for that event to be set will never
again wait.
A
Brief Comparison of the Methods for Intertask Communication
We have discussed using queues,
pipes, mailboxes, semaphores, and events for communication between two tasks
or between an interrupt routine and a task. Here is a comparison of these
methods:
Semaphores are usually the fastest
and simplest methods. However, not much information can pass through a
semaphore, which passes just a 1-bit message saying that it has been
released.
Events are a little more
complicated than semaphores and take up just a hair more microprocessor time
than semaphores. The advantage of events over semaphores is that a task can
wait for any one of several events at the same time, whereas it can only wait
for one semaphore. (Another advantage is that some RTOSs make it convenient
to use events and make it inconvenient to use semaphores for this purpose.)
Queues allow you to send a lot of
information from one task to another. Even though the task can wait on only
one queue (or mailbox or pipe) at a time, the fact that you can send data
through a queue make it even more flexible than events. The drawbacks are (1)
putting messages into and taking messages out of queues is more
microprocessor-intensive and (2) that queues offer you many more opportunities
to insert bugs into your code. Mailboxes and pipes share all of these
characteristics.
|
|
Most RTOSs have some kind of
memory management subsystem. Although some offer the equivalent of the C
library functions malloc and free, real-time systems engineers often avoid
these two functions because they are typically slow and because their
execution times are unpredictable. They favor instead functions that allocate
and free fixed-size buffers, and most RTOSs offer fast and predictable
functions for that purpose.
The MultiTask! system
is a fairly typical RTOS in this regard: you can set up pools, each of which
consists of some number of memory buffers. In any given pool, all of the
buffers are the same size. The reqbuf and getbut functions
allocate a. memory buffer from a pool. Each returns a pointer to the
allocated buffer; the only difference between them is that if no memory
buffers are available, get but will block the task that calls it,
whereas reqbuf will return a NULL pointer right away.
void *getbuf (unsigned int
uPoolId, unsigned int uTimeout);
void *reqbuf (unsigned int
uPoolId);
In each of these functions, the
uPoolId parameter indicates the pool from which the memory buffer is to be
allocated. The uTimeout parameter in getbuf indicates the length of time that
the task is willing to wait for a buffer if none are free. The size of the
buffer that is returned is determined by the pool from which the buffer is
allocated, since all the buffers in anyone pool are the same size. The tasks
that call, these functions must know the sizes of the buffers in each pool.
The relbuf function frees a memory
buffer.
void relbuf (unsigned int uPoolId,
void *p_vBuffer);
Note that relbuf does not check
that p_vBufter really points to a buffer in the pool indicated by uPoolId. If
your code passes an invalid value for p_vBuffer, the results are usually
catastrophic.
The MultiTask! system is also
typical of many RTOSs in that it does not know where the memory on your system
is. Remember that in most embedded systems, unlike desktop systems, your
software, not the operating system, gets control of a machine first. When it
starts, the RTOS has no way of knowing what memory is free and what memory
your application is already using. MultiTask! will manage a pool of memory
buffers for you, but you must tell it where the memory is. The init_mem_pool
function allows you to do this.
int init_mem_pool (
unsigned int uPoolId,
void *p_vMemory,
unsigned int.uBufSize,
unsigned int uBufCount,
unsigned int uPoolType
);
The uPoolId parameter is the
identifier you will use in later calls to getbuf, reqbuf, and relbuf. The
p_vMemory parameter points to the block of memory to use as the pool; you
must make sure that it points to available memory. The uBufSize and uBufCount
parameters indicate how large each buffer is and how many of them there are
the pool. (The uPoolType parameter indicates whether these buffers will be
used by tasks or by interrupt routines. This distinction is peculiar to MultiTask!,
and we will not discuss it here.) The picture shows how this function
allocates the pool of memory buffers.
 |
|
Interrupt routines in most RTOS
environments must follow two rules that do not apply to task code.
Rule 1. An interrupt routine must
not call any RTOS function that might block the caller. Therefore, interrupt
routines must not get semaphores, read from queues or mailboxes that might be
empty, wait for events, and so on. If an interrupt routine calls an RTOS
function and gets blocked, then, in addition to the interrupt routine, the
task that was running when the interrupt occurred will be blocked, even if
that task is the highest- priority task. Also, most interrupt routines must
run to completion to reset the hardware to be ready for the next interrupt.
Rule 2. An interrupt routine may
not call any RTOS function that might cause the RTOS to switch tasks unless
the RTOS knows that an interrupt routine, and not a task, is executing. This
means that interrupt routines may not write to mailboxes or queues on which
tasks may be waiting, set events, release semaphores, and so on - unless the
RTOS knows it is an interrupt routine that is doing these things.
If an interrupt routine breaks
this rule, the RTOS might switch control away from the interrupt routine
(which. the RTOS think is a task) to run another task, and the interrupt
routine may not complete for a long time, blocking at least all
lower-priority interrupts and possibly all interrupts.
In the next few figures, we’ll
examine these rules.
Rule 1: No Blocking
In Figure we examine the software
for the control of the nuclear reactor. This time, the task code and the
interrupt routine share the temperature data with a semaphore. This code will
not work. It is in violation of rule 1. If the interrupt routine happened to
interrupt vTaskTestTemperatures while it had the semaphore, then when the
interrupt routine called GetSemaphore, the RTOS wou1d notice that the
semaphore was already taken and block. This will stop both the interrupt
routine and vTaskTestTemperatures (the task that was interrupted), after
which the system would grind to a halt in a sort of one-armed deadly embrace.
With both the interrupt routine and vTaskTestTemperatures blocked, no code
will ever release the semaphore.
(Some RTOSs have an alternative -
and equally useless - behavior in this situation: when the interrupt routine
calls GetSemaphore, these RTOSs notice that vTaskTestTemperatures already has
the semaphore and, since they think that vTaskTestTemperatures is still
running, they let the interrupt routine continue executing. In this case, the
semaphore no longer protects the data properly.)
Even if the interrupt routine
interrupts some other task, this code can cause problems. If
vTaskTestTemperatures has the semaphore when the interrupt occurs, then, when
the interrupt routine tries to get the semaphore too, it will block (along
with whatever task was running when interrupt occurred). For as long as the
interrupt routine is blocked and that may be for a long time if
vTaskTestTemperatures does not get the microprocessor back to allow it to
release the semaphore all lower-priority interrupt routines and the task that
was unfortunate enough to be interrupted will get no microprocessor time.
Some RTOSs contain various
functions that never block. For example, many have a function that returns
the status of a semaphore. Since such a function does not block, interrupt
routines can call it (assuming that this is in compliance with rule 2, which
it usually is).
|
|
Rule 2: No RTOS Calls without Fair
Warning
To understand rule 2, examine
figure above, a naive view of how an interrupt routine should work under an
RTOS. The graph shows how the microprocessor’s attention shifted from one
part of the code to another over time. The interrupt routine interrupts the
lower-priority task, and, among other things, calls the RTOS to write a
message to a mailbox (legal under rule l, assuming that function can’t
block). When the interrupt routine exits, the RTOS arranges for the
microprocessor to execute either the original task, or, if a higher-priority
task was waiting on the mailbox, that higher priority task.
Figure below shows what really
happens, at least in the worst case. If the higher-priority task is blocked
on the mailbox, then as soon as the interrupt routine writes to the mailbox,
the RTOS unblocks the higher-priority task. Then the RTOS (knowing nothing
about the interrupt routine) notices that the task that it thinks is running
is no highest-priority task that is ready to run. Therefore, instead of
returning to the interrupt routine (which the RTOS thinks is part of the
lower priority task), the RTOS switches to the higher-priority task. The
interrupt routine doesn’t get to finish until later.
RTOSs use various methods for
solving this problem, but all require your cooperation. Figure shows the
first scheme. In it, the RTOS intercepts all the interrupts and then calls
your interrupt routine. By doing this, the RTOS finds out when an interrupt
routine has started. When the interrupt routine later writes to mailbox, the
RTOS knows to return to the interrupt routine and not to switch tasks, no
matter what task is unblocked by the write to the mailbox. When the interrupt
routine is over, it returns, and the RTOS gets control again. The RTOS
scheduler then figures out what task should now get the microprocessor.
If your RTOS uses this method,
then you will need to call some function within the RTOS that tells the RTOS
where your interrupt routines are and which hardware interrupts correspond to
which interrupt routines.
 
Figure shows an alternative
scheme, in which the RTOS provides a function that the interrupt routines
call to let the RTOS know that an interrupt routine is running. After the
call to that function, the RTOS knows that an interrupt routine is in
progress, and when the interrupt routine writes to the mailbox the RTOS
always returns to the interrupt routine, no matter what task is ready, as in
the figure. When the interrupt routine is over, it jumps to or calls some
other function in RTOS, which calls the scheduler to figure out what task
should now get the microprocessor. Essentially, this procedure disables the
scheduler for the duration of the interrupt routine.
In this plan, your interrupt routines
must call the appropriate RTOS functions at the right moments.
|
We will
furthermore discuss the environment RTOS in details. We will discuss the
concept of a task, the share data problem, semaphores and some more issues.
Commercial RTOS are available from numerous well known vendors such as VxWorks,
VRTX, pSOS, Nucleus, C Executive, LynxOS, QNX, MultiTask!, AMX, and so on. The
main standard is called POSIX.
Tasks and States
Tasks and Data
Semaphores and Shared
Data
Semaphores as a
Signaling Device
Message Queues,
Mailboxes, and Pipes
Timer Functions
Events
Memory management
Interrupt Routines in an
RTOS Environment - Part 1
Interrupt Routines in an
RTOS Environment - Part 2
No comments:
Post a Comment