线程安全队列实现（或替代数据结构）

Question

I'm trying to implement a threadsafe queue that will hold data coming in on a UART buffer. The queue is written to as part of the UART RX-complete-ISR. This queue now holds the data that came in on the UART RX channel. The queue also needs to be read by the application using another thread to process the data. But since I'm running all of this on a bare-metal system without any RTOS support, I'm wondering if there is a better data structure to use here. Because when I'm using queues there is one common variable that both the threads need to access and this might cause a race condition.

I realize as I'm writing this that this is the producer-consumer problem and the only way I have solved this in the past is with mutexes. Is there an alternative to that approach?

Edit:

The processor being used is a ST micro cortex-M0 based processor. I looked into some mutex implementations for M0 but couldn't find anything definitive. This is mostly because the M0 processor does not support LDREX or STREX instructions that are usually present in M3 and M4 systems and are used for implementing atomic operations required for mutexes.

As for the system, the code runs straight to main after booting and has NO OS functionality. Even the scheduler was something that was written by me and simply looks at a table that holds function pointers and calls them.

The requirement is that one thread writes into a memory location from the ISR to store data coming in through the UART RX channel and another thread reads from those memory locations to process the data received. So my initial thought was that I would push to a queue from the ISR and read from it using the application thread, but that is looking less and less feasible because of the race condition that comes out of a producer-consumer setup (with the ISR being the producer and the application being the consumer).

Answer 1

Your M0 is a uniprocessor, so you can disable interrupts to serve basic exclusion:

int q_put(int c, Q *q) {
   int ps, n, r;
   ps = disable();
   if ((n = q->tail+1) == q->len) {
        n = 0;
   }
   if (n != q->head) {
        q->buf[q->tail] = c;
        q->tail = n;
        r = 0;
   } else {
        r = -1;
   }
   restore(ps);
   return r;
}

int q_get(Q *q) {
   int ps, n, r;
   ps = disable();
   if ((n=q->head) == q->tail) {
       r = -1;
   } else {
       r = q->buf[n] & 0xff;
       q->head = n+1 == q->len ? 0 : n+1;
   }
   restore(ps);
   return r;
}

where disable disables interrupts returning the previous state, and restore sets the interrupt state to its argument.

Answer 2

If it is bare metal, then you won't have any mutex or higher level concepts, so you need to implement something similar yourself. This is a common scenario however.

The normal datatype to use for this is a ring buffer, which is a manner of queue, implemented over a circular array. You should write that one as a separate module, but include two parameters: interrupt register and bit mask for setting/clearing that register. Then let the ring buffer code temporarily disable the UART RX interrupt during copy from the ring buffer to the caller application. This will protect against race conditions.

Since UART is most of the time relatively slow (< 115.2kbps), disabling the RX interrupt for a brief moment is harmless, since you only need a couple of microseconds to do the copy. The theory behind this is that the ISR will run once per data byte received, but the caller runs completely asynchronous in relation to the data. So the caller should not be allowed to block the ISR for longer than the time it takes to clock in 2 data bytes, in which case there will be overrun errors and data losses.

Which in practice means that the caller should only block the ISR for shorter time than it takes to clock in 1 data byte, because we don't know how far the UART has gotten in clocking in the current byte, at the time we disable the RX interrupt. If the interrupt is disabled at the point the byte is clocked in, that should still be fine since it should become a pending interrupt and trigger once you enable the RX interrupt once again. (At least all UART hardware I've ever used works like this, but double-check the behavior of your specific one just to be sure.)

So this all assuming that you can do the copy faster than the time it takes to clock in 1+8+1 new bits on the UART (no parity 1 stop). So if you are running for example 115.2kbps, your code must be faster than 1/115200 * (1+8+1) = 86.8us. If you are only copying less than a 32 bit word during that time, a Cortex M should have no trouble keeping up, assuming you run a sensible clock speed (8-48MHz something like that) and not some low power clock.

You always need to check for overrun and framing errors. Depending on UART hardware, these might be separate interrupts or the same one as RX. Then handle those errors in whatever way that makes sense for the application. If both sender & receiver is configured correctly and you didn't mess up the timing calculations, you shouldn't have any such errors.