Hi,
I still think it would be worth to try the latest RTEMS master just to
make sure we don't search a bug which is already fixed. Also RTEMS 5 has
more assertions in the debug configuration.
-> is RTEMS 5 stable branch or development ?
-> what is the link for RTEMS master (where to do a git clone from) ?
I have a theory of what may be going on, please let me know if you think
it's valid.
1. let's say Wait.flags = THREAD_WAIT_CLASS_EVENT
| THREAD_WAIT_STATE_INTEND_TO_BLOCK
and state = STATES_WAITING_FOR_EVENT because they are set this way
in _Event_Seize
2. USB ISR arrives, so we go in _Event_Surrender where
success = _Thread_Wait_flags_try_change_critical(
the_thread,
wait_class | THREAD_WAIT_STATE_INTEND_TO_BLOCK,
ready_again
);
will return TRUE, because the expected flags was intend to block, so
Wait.flags will become THREAD_WAIT_CLASS_EVENT
| THREAD_WAIT_STATE_READY_AGAIN
3. _Event_Seize continues execution with
success = _Thread_Wait_flags_try_change(
executing,
intend_to_block,
wait_class | THREAD_WAIT_STATE_BLOCKED
);
and success will be FALSE because Wait.flags is not
THREAD_WAIT_STATE_INTEND_TO_BLOCK anymore, so _Thread_Unblock will get
called
and eventually _States_Clear will put state = STATES_READY.
4. _Thread_Dispatch_enable will be called in _Event_Seize, but another
task is selected to run (I have 4 tasks with the same priority, my task
doesn't have a smaller
priority, it's not necessarily made the heir task)
5. Another USB ISR arrives; this time we enter _Event_Surrender with
state = STATES_READY and Wait.flags = THREAD_WAIT_CLASS_EVENT
| THREAD_WAIT_STATE_READY_AGAIN,
so we go on the else branch, setting unblock = FALSE, not
calling _Thread_Unblock from _Event_Surrender.
6. basically no matter how many USB ISRs will arrive, the same scenario
from step 5 repeats ... no one will call _Thread_Unblock for SCrx again !
Also, when entering task command in the shell it shows the task as
ready (because it is) and the USB event set.
regards,
Catalin
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:13 AM Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 11/10/2018 15:37, Catalin Demergian wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Yes, there is a call to rtems_task_wake_after in the code; but in that
> > case state should have been STATES_DELAYING, right ?
>
> The
>
> state = 0x0 = STATES_READY
> Wait.flags = 0x02 = THREAD_WAIT_STATE_BLOCKED
>
> looks suspicious. It should be
>
> state = 0x0 = STATES_READY
> Wait.flags = 0x04 = THREAD_WAIT_STATE_READY_AGAIN
>
> after a call to _Thread_Timeout(),
>
> > At another run, I got
> > state = 0x0 = STATES_READY
> > Wait.flags = 0x104 = THREAD_WAIT_CLASS_EVENT |
> > THREAD_WAIT_STATE_READY_AGAIN
> > Why would the state be ready in _Event_Seize ? could that value be
> > corrupt ?
> >
> > I tried with the stack checker as well, but I didn't see any out of
> > band values.
>
> Ok, good.
>
> I still think it would be worth to try the latest RTEMS master just to
> make sure we don't search a bug which is already fixed. Also RTEMS 5 as
> more assertions in the debug configuration.
>
> --
> Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
>
> Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
> Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
> Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
> E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
> PGP : Public key available on request.
>
> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
>
>
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
