For preemptive or less preemptive multi tasking on the ZPUng architecture, some mechanisms for task switching come in handy. Since the ZPUng is a context saving architecture by design, the context switching is very light: We only need to manipulate the stack pointer and program counter somewhere in the code (plus regard some minor details with global variables used by GCC which we will ignore for the begin).
Every task has its own stack area in the stack memory. Since we have no virtual memory in this architecture, care must be taken that the local stack areas are not trashing other task’s reserved stack spaces.
Preemptive (time slice) multitasking
In this case, a timer interrupt service routine will always change the context. By design of an interrupt handling hardware, the return address PC is always stored on the stack, so if we manipulate the stack pointer (SP) inside the interrupt handler routine, there’s not much more to do than saving any global context entities on the stack.
For this context switch, we need to store the current SP into the address pointed to by a global context pointer g_context on IRQ handler entry and restore it upon exit. The following assembler macros are required to do that:
; Save current SP context in a global ptr g_context .macro save_context pushsp im g_context load store .endm ; Restore SP context from global ptr g_context .macro restore_context im g_context load load popsp .endm
The timer service routine looks very simple as well:
; -- IRQ handler .globl irq_timer_handler irq_timer_handler: ; Stores the current context (sp) into the variable pointed to ; by g_context. save_context set_stack_isr save_memregs im timer_service call restore_memregs restore_stack ; This leaves a possibly new return jump address on ; TOS, if g_context was modified by the timer_service. restore_context .byte 15 poppc
So inside the timer_service() function which can be coded in C, we need to only modify the g_context pointer with each tasks stack pointer storage address:
g_context = &walk->sp; // Context switch
Using a very simple prioritized round robin scheduler and two example tasks toggling GPIO pins, we achieve a simulation result as shown below:
The TaskDesc debug output denotes the currently active task ID, 0x2a90 being the main task, where 0x2aa8 toggles GPIO1, 0x2ac0 toggles GPIO0.
Internally, these task descriptors are put into a worker queue and are cycled through using some bit of priority distribution, i.e. tasks with a lower ‘interval’ value get more CPU time, however, a task can never block completely.
Atomicity
You might notice something odd in the above wave trace around t = 1.5ms (and 1.7ms, likewise): GPIO0 is changed even though the corresponding task 0x2ac0 is not active. Why is that? Let’s have a look at the task code:
int task1(void *p)
{
while (1) {
MMR(Reg_GPIO_OUT) ^= 0x02;
}
return 0;
}
int task2(void *p)
{
while (1) {
MMR(Reg_GPIO_OUT) ^= 0x01;
}
return 0;
}
The solution:
The XOR statement to the GPIO register is not atomic. Meaning, it splits up into the following primitive instructions:
- Get value from OUT register
- XOR with a value
- Write back value to OUT register
Let a timer IRQ request come in between 1 or 2 and assume it is switching the context to the other GPIO manipulating task – here we go. task2() is actually getting in between!
If we were to use global variables and tasks depending on single bits, we should keep this big virtual banner around in our coder’s brains:
Make sure your semaphores are atomic!
Non-preemptive (user space) multi tasking
Another aspect of concurring tasks: There might be a process waiting for input data, i.e. sleeping until data is ready and the IRQ handler wakes the corresponding process up. In the meantime, other processes might want to consume the CPU time. The rather dumb round robin scheme doesn’t take this into account, it just cycles through processes and makes sure each gets its slice once in a while.
Non-preemptive multi tasking implies, that some control is actually given to the currently running task. Loosely speaking: a task switch is induced from user space (not inside an IRQ handler). Let’s summarize what functionality we’d want to have for a user space triggered context switch:
- Process might want to sleep for a certain time:
-> We put the context descriptor into a sleep queue that is worked on inside the timer service handler. Once the timeout is reached, the process is put back first into the worker queue, hence is resumed next. - Process waits for data to arrive / DMA to complete:
-> The context descriptor is put into a wait queue and resumes upon a specific data IRQ event.
A similar scheme is run in the Linux kernel. We try to keep this layer way thinner for our simple ZPUng SoC though.
Now, with a lack of atomicity as shown above, things can get in each other’s way. Classical CPU architecture tend to block IRQs to implement atomic behaviour, we can overcome this overhead using the ZPUng with a trick by jumping into microcode emulation code space (using a reserved instruction), where interrupts are by default masked, but still latched (like inside an IM instruction sequence). This introduces some minor latency for interrupt response, however this is most of the time not of any concern.
Inside the context switch system call, the stack context is manipulated as inside the timer service handler. Using simple queue techniques we can make sure that no unwanted modification is getting in between non-atomic operations.
The simulation benefit
When developing tailored multi tasking configurations without a generic OS overhead, bugs are easily introduced. The classical problem of a race condition with uninitialized variables (that never turn up in a source code review or MISRA compliance check) can cause a lot of headache on uC-Systems with no fully non-intrusive trace unit. In this case, a full 1:1 simulation comes in extremely handy.
For example, if a task accesses a variable before it was actually initialized or properly defined, the system would recognize the undefined memory content as such and display this event in the simulation.
However, the system as such can not take the burden of you, to create proper test cases. For example, a multi tasking setup may never show a problem in the simulation if the timing of interrupt events is deterministic. If external data availability comes into play, you would have to create a stimulating test bench that makes use of all possible timing intervals with respect to a task switch event to actually prove that the programm is robust in all possible scenarios.
