Why kernel code/thread executing in interrupt context cannot sleep?

Question

I am reading following article by Robert Love

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6916

that says

\"...Let\'s discuss the fact that work queues run i

Answer 1

So what stops the scehduler from putting interrupt context to sleep and taking next schedulable process and passing it the control?

Scheduling happens on timer interrupts. The basic rule is that only one interrupt can be open at a time, so if you go to sleep in the "got data from device X" interrupt, the timer interrupt cannot run to schedule it out.

Interrupts also happen many times and overlap. If you put the "got data" interrupt to sleep, and then get more data, what happens? It's confusing (and fragile) enough that the catch-all rule is: no sleeping in interrupts. You will do it wrong.

Answer 2

By nature, the question is whether in interrupt handler you can get a valid "current" (address to the current process task_structure), if yes, it's possible to modify the content there accordingly to make it into "sleep" state, which can be back by scheduler later if the state get changed somehow. The answer may be hardware-dependent.

But in ARM, it's impossible since 'current' is irrelevant to process under interrupt mode. See the code below:

#linux/arch/arm/include/asm/thread_info.h 
94 static inline struct thread_info *current_thread_info(void)
95 {
96  register unsigned long sp asm ("sp");
97  return (struct thread_info *)(sp & ~(THREAD_SIZE - 1));
98 }

sp in USER mode and SVC mode are the "same" ("same" here not mean they're equal, instead, user mode's sp point to user space stack, while svc mode's sp r13_svc point to the kernel stack, where the user process's task_structure was updated at previous task switch, When a system call occurs, the process enter kernel space again, when the sp (sp_svc) is still not changed, these 2 sp are associated with each other, in this sense, they're 'same'), So under SVC mode, kernel code can get the valid 'current'. But under other privileged modes, say interrupt mode, sp is 'different', point to dedicated address defined in cpu_init(). The 'current' calculated under these mode will be irrelevant to the interrupted process, accessing it will result in unexpected behaviors. That's why it's always said that system call can sleep but interrupt handler can't, system call works on process context but interrupt not.

Answer 3

The linux kernel has two ways to allocate interrupt stack. One is on the kernel stack of the interrupted process, the other is a dedicated interrupt stack per CPU. If the interrupt context is saved on the dedicated interrupt stack per CPU, then indeed the interrupt context is completely not associated with any process. The "current" macro will produce an invalid pointer to current running process, since the "current" macro with some architecture are computed with the stack pointer. The stack pointer in the interrupt context may point to the dedicated interrupt stack, not the kernel stack of some process.

Answer 4

Even if you could put an ISR to sleep, you wouldn't want to do it. You want your ISRs to be as fast as possible to reduce the risk of missing subsequent interrupts.

Answer 5

Disallowing an interrupt handler to block is a design choice. When some data is on the device, the interrupt handler intercepts the current process, prepares the transfer of the data and enables the interrupt; before the handler enables the current interrupt, the device has to hang. We want keep our I/O busy and our system responsive, then we had better not block the interrupt handler.

I don't think the "unstable states" are an essential reason. Processes, no matter they are in user-mode or kernel-mode, should be aware that they may be interrupted by interrupts. If some kernel-mode data structure will be accessed by both interrupt handler and the current process, and race condition exists, then the current process should disable local interrupts, and moreover for multi-processor architectures, spinlocks should be used to during the critical sections.

I also don't think if the interrupt handler were blocked, it cannot be waken up. When we say "block", basically it means that the blocked process is waiting for some event/resource, so it links itself into some wait-queue for that event/resource. Whenever the resource is released, the releasing process is responsible for waking up the waiting process(es).

However, the really annoying thing is that the blocked process can do nothing during the blocking time; it did nothing wrong for this punishment, which is unfair. And nobody could surely predict the blocking time, so the innocent process has to wait for unclear reason and for unlimited time.