xTaskCreate ignore the priority. #3093

nopnop2002 · 2019-02-24T01:52:22Z

I tested this code.

/* The example of esp-idf
 *
 * This sample code is in the public domain.
 */
#include <stdio.h>
#include "freertos/FreeRTOS.h"
#include "freertos/task.h"
#include "esp_log.h"

static const char *TAG = "task-test";

void ConsumptionTick(int delay) {
    TickType_t startTick;
    TickType_t endTick;
    TickType_t nowTick;
    startTick = xTaskGetTickCount();
    endTick = startTick + delay;
    //printf("startTick=%d endTick=%d\n",startTick,endTick);
    while(1) {
      nowTick = xTaskGetTickCount();
      if (nowTick > endTick) break;
    }
}

void task(void *pvParameter)
{
    char * my_name = pcTaskGetTaskName( NULL );
    int cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID();
    UBaseType_t my_prio = uxTaskPriorityGet( NULL );

    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] start CoreID=%d Priority=%d",my_name, cpu_id, my_prio);
    ConsumptionTick(200);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] end CoreID=%d Priority=%d",my_name, cpu_id, my_prio);
    vTaskDelete( NULL );
}

void app_main()
{
    char * my_name = pcTaskGetTaskName(NULL);
    int cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID();
    UBaseType_t my_prio = uxTaskPriorityGet( NULL );

    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] start CoreID=%d Priority=%d",my_name, cpu_id, my_prio);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] portTICK_PERIOD_MS=%d[ms]",my_name, portTICK_PERIOD_MS);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] configMAX_PRIORITIES=%d",my_name, configMAX_PRIORITIES);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE=%d",my_name, configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE);

#if 1
    xTaskCreate(&task, "Task1", 2048, NULL, 1, NULL);
    xTaskCreate(&task, "Task2", 2048, NULL, 2, NULL);
#endif

#if 0
    xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(&task, "Task1", 2048, NULL, 1, NULL, 1);
    xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(&task, "Task2", 2048, NULL, 2, NULL, 1);
#endif
}

When i use xTaskCreate, It work round-robin.
The priority is ignored.

I (239) task-test: [main] start CoreID=0 Priority=1
I (239) task-test: [main] portTICK_PERIOD_MS=10[ms]
I (249) task-test: [main] configMAX_PRIORITIES=25
I (249) task-test: [main] configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE=768
I (259) task-test: [Task1] start CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (259) task-test: [Task2] start CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (2279) task-test: [Task1] end CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (2279) task-test: [Task2] end CoreID=1 Priority=2

When i use xTaskCreatePinnedToCore, It work follow the priority.

I (240) task-test: [main] start CoreID=0 Priority=1
I (240) task-test: [main] portTICK_PERIOD_MS=10[ms]
I (250) task-test: [main] configMAX_PRIORITIES=25
I (250) task-test: [main] configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE=768
I (260) task-test: [Task2] start CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (2270) task-test: [Task2] end CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (260) task-test: [Task1] start CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (4280) task-test: [Task1] end CoreID=1 Priority=1

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

chegewara · 2019-02-24T09:04:54Z

I would rather say its problem with codeID identification rather than ignoring task priority. You can easy test it by increasing number of tasks:

#if 1
    xTaskCreate(&task, "Task1", 2048, NULL, 1, NULL);
    xTaskCreate(&task, "Task2", 2048, NULL, 2, NULL);
    xTaskCreate(&task, "Task3", 2048, NULL, 3, NULL);
    xTaskCreate(&task, "Task4", 2048, NULL, 4, NULL);
#endif

negativekelvin · 2019-02-24T12:48:29Z

Task1 switches to core 0 but you only call xPortGetCoreID once

nopnop2002 · 2019-02-24T22:40:50Z

I changed my code.

void task(void *pvParameter)
{
    int cpu_id;
    char * my_name = pcTaskGetTaskName( NULL );
    UBaseType_t my_prio = uxTaskPriorityGet( NULL );

    cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID();
    ESP_LOGI(my_name, "start CoreID=%d Priority=%d",cpu_id, my_prio);
    ConsumptionTick(200);
    cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID();
    ESP_LOGI(my_name, "end CoreID=%d Priority=%d",cpu_id, my_prio);
    vTaskDelete( NULL );
}

Task1 start with core1 and end with core1.

I (240) main: start CoreID=0 Priority=1
I (240) main: portTICK_PERIOD_MS=10[ms]
I (240) main: configMAX_PRIORITIES=25
I (250) main: configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE=768
I (250) Task1: start CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (250) Task2: start CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (2270) Task2: end CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (2280) Task1: end CoreID=1 Priority=1

Task1 switches to core 0 ??

nopnop2002 · 2019-02-24T22:50:12Z

@chegewara

What is problem with codeID identification ??

chegewara · 2019-02-24T23:47:55Z

This is what i mean:

I (67) task-test: [Task2] start CoreID=0 Priority=2
I (67) task-test: [Task1] start CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (273) task-test: [Task2] end CoreID=0 Priority=2
I (279) task-test: [Task1] end CoreID=1 Priority=1

By default when you create 2 tasks with xTaskCreate then most likely both tasks will start on both cores, but your tasks are on the same core (core1). In the other hand, logs suggest that both tasks are running on different cores, because both start and end on the same time, are running simultaneously (compare with my logs).

When you have 2 tasks running on the same core, with code you provisioned in OP, and you modify code the way i asked you then you will be sure that at least 2 tasks will be running on the same core. Here are logs:

I (67) task-test: [Task2] start CoreID=0 Priority=12
I (67) task-test: [Task1] start CoreID=1 Priority=11
I (273) task-test: [Task2] end CoreID=0 Priority=12
I (273) task-test: [Task3] start CoreID=0 Priority=13
I (279) task-test: [Task1] end CoreID=1 Priority=11
I (474) task-test: [Task3] end CoreID=0 Priority=13

Those logs suggest that you are right about ignoring priority, but not exactly. The problem is specific of ConsumptionTick function. This function consumes all time on core until it exits, there is no delay or any other function that is blocking task. Here you can see test code and logs to confirm it:

void app_main()
{
    char * my_name = pcTaskGetTaskName(NULL);
    int cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID();
    UBaseType_t my_prio = uxTaskPriorityGet( NULL );

    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] start CoreID=%d Priority=%d",my_name, cpu_id, my_prio);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] portTICK_PERIOD_MS=%d[ms]",my_name, portTICK_PERIOD_MS);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] configMAX_PRIORITIES=%d",my_name, configMAX_PRIORITIES);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE=%d",my_name, configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE);

#if 1
    ESP_LOGI(__func__, "before task 1 start");
    xTaskCreate(&task, "Task1", 2048, NULL, 1, NULL);
    ESP_LOGI(__func__, "before task 2 start");
    xTaskCreate(&task, "Task2", 2048, NULL, 2, NULL);
    ESP_LOGI(__func__, "before task 3 start");
    xTaskCreate(&task, "Task3", 2048, NULL, 3, NULL);
#endif

#if 0
    xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(&task, "Task1", 2048, NULL, 1, NULL, 1);
    xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(&task, "Task2", 2048, NULL, 2, NULL, 1);
#endif
}

I (46) task-test: [main] start CoreID=0 Priority=1
I (50) task-test: [main] portTICK_PERIOD_MS=1[ms]
I (56) task-test: [main] configMAX_PRIORITIES=25
I (61) task-test: [main] configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE=768
I (67) app_main: before task 1 start
I (71) app_main: before task 2 start
I (71) task-test: [Task1] start CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (76) task-test: [Task2] start CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (282) task-test: [Task1] end CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (287) task-test: [Task2] end CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (76) app_main: before task 3 start
I (287) task-test: [Task3] start CoreID=1 Priority=3
I (493) task-test: [Task3] end CoreID=1 Priority=3

Conclusion:
when task1 is running, task2 will start on second core, no matter what priority it has and task3 will start only when any core have free time to run another task, in this case when task1 or task2 will finish.

PS as you can see all 3 tasks in my last logs also are running on CoreID = 1 which is not correct

chegewara · 2019-02-25T00:05:57Z

My observations:

you have set portTICK_PERIOD_MS=10, i have portTICK_PERIOD_MS=1; thats why xPortGetCoreID is working different for you and me
when i add ESP_LOGI(__func__, "before task 1 start"); in app_main then in my logs xPortGetCoreID also is not working properly, but if i comment out those logs then all is back to normal
the real issue is xPortGetCoreID

Compare logs:

I (67) task-test: [Task3] start CoreID=0 Priority=3
I (67) task-test: [Task2] start CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (273) task-test: [Task3] end CoreID=0 Priority=3
I (67) task-test: [Task1] start CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (279) task-test: [Task2] end CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (474) task-test: [Task1] end CoreID=1 Priority=1

I (67) app_main: before task 1 start
I (71) app_main: before task 2 start
I (71) task-test: [Task1] start CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (76) task-test: [Task2] start CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (282) task-test: [Task1] end CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (287) task-test: [Task2] end CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (76) app_main: before task 3 start
I (287) task-test: [Task3] start CoreID=1 Priority=3
I (493) task-test: [Task3] end CoreID=1 Priority=3

negativekelvin · 2019-02-25T07:04:38Z

Yeah something is sketchy...

void task(void *pvParameter)
{
    char * my_name = pcTaskGetTaskName( NULL );
    int cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID();
    UBaseType_t my_prio = uxTaskPriorityGet( NULL );
    int id;
    __asm__  volatile (
        "rsr.prid %0\n"
        :"=r"(id));
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] start CoreID=%d cpu_id=%d Priority=%d",my_name, id,cpu_id, my_prio);
    ConsumptionTick(200);
    cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID();
    __asm__ volatile (
        "rsr.prid %0\n"
        :"=r"(id));
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] end CoreID=%d cpu_id=%d Priority=%d",my_name, id, cpu_id, my_prio);
    vTaskDelete( NULL );
}

I (626) task-test: [main] start CoreID=0 Priority=1
I (636) task-test: [main] portTICK_PERIOD_MS=10[ms]
I (636) task-test: [main] configMAX_PRIORITIES=25
I (646) task-test: [main] configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE=768
I (646) task-test: [Task1] start CoreID=43947 cpu_id=1 Priority=1
I (646) task-test: [Task2] start CoreID=43947 cpu_id=1 Priority=2
I (2656) task-test: [Task1] end CoreID=43947 cpu_id=1 Priority=1
I (2666) task-test: [Task2] end CoreID=52685 cpu_id=1 Priority=2

nopnop2002 · 2019-02-25T10:11:42Z

@chegewara

I changed my tick rate from 100Hz to 1000Hz.
But CoreID wasn't changed.

I (239) main: start CoreID=0 Priority=1
I (242) main: portTICK_PERIOD_MS=1[ms]
I (247) main: configMAX_PRIORITIES=25
I (251) main: configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE=768
I (256) Task1: start CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (256) Task2: start CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (462) Task1: end CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (466) Task2: end CoreID=1 Priority=2

nopnop2002 · 2019-02-25T10:15:40Z

@negativekelvin

I tried your code.
What is id ??
Is this value always the same value(43947 or 52685)?

I (239) main: start CoreID=0 Priority=1
I (239) main: portTICK_PERIOD_MS=10[ms]
I (239) main: configMAX_PRIORITIES=25
I (249) main: configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE=768
I (249) Task1: start id=43947 cpu_id=1 Priority=1
I (249) Task2: start id=43947 cpu_id=1 Priority=2
I (2269) Task2: end id=52685 cpu_id=1 Priority=2
I (2279) Task1: end id=43947 cpu_id=1 Priority=1

negativekelvin · 2019-02-25T10:20:54Z

43947 = core 1, 52685 = core 0

chegewara · 2019-02-25T10:35:42Z

I would suggest to rename topic and ask @projectgus or @igrr for help.

nopnop2002 · 2019-02-25T10:41:54Z

@chegewara
@negativekelvin

Thank you for your help.

nopnop2002 · 2019-02-25T12:10:35Z

I experienced it more strangely.

/* The example of esp-idf
 *
 * This sample code is in the public domain.
 */
#include <stdio.h>
#include "freertos/FreeRTOS.h"
#include "freertos/task.h"
#include "esp_log.h"

void ConsumptionTick(int delay) {
    TickType_t startTick;
    TickType_t endTick;
    TickType_t nowTick;
    startTick = xTaskGetTickCount();
    endTick = startTick + delay;
    //printf("startTick=%d endTick=%d\n",startTick,endTick);
    while(1) {
      nowTick = xTaskGetTickCount();
      if (nowTick > endTick) break;
    }
}

void task(void *pvParameter)
{
    int CoreId;
    int RealId;
    char * my_name = pcTaskGetTaskName( NULL );
    UBaseType_t my_prio = uxTaskPriorityGet( NULL );

    CoreId = xPortGetCoreID();
    __asm__  volatile (
        "rsr.prid %0\n"
        :"=r"(RealId));

    ESP_LOGI(my_name, "start RealId=%d CoreId=%d Priority=%d",RealId, CoreId, my_prio);
    ConsumptionTick(200);
    CoreId = xPortGetCoreID();
    __asm__  volatile (
        "rsr.prid %0\n"
        :"=r"(RealId));

    ESP_LOGI(my_name, "end RealId=%d CoreId=%d Priority=%d",RealId, CoreId, my_prio);
    vTaskDelete( NULL );
}

void app_main()
{
    char * my_name = pcTaskGetTaskName(NULL);
    int CoreId = xPortGetCoreID();
    UBaseType_t my_prio = uxTaskPriorityGet( NULL );
    int RealId;
    __asm__  volatile (
        "rsr.prid %0\n"
        :"=r"(RealId));


    ESP_LOGI(my_name, "start RealId=%d CoreId=%d Priority=%d",RealId,CoreId,my_prio);
    ESP_LOGI(my_name, "portTICK_PERIOD_MS=%d[ms]",portTICK_PERIOD_MS);
    ESP_LOGI(my_name, "configMAX_PRIORITIES=%d",configMAX_PRIORITIES);

#if 0
    xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(&task, "Task1", 2048, NULL, 1, NULL, 1);
    xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(&task, "Task2", 2048, NULL, 2, NULL, 0);
    xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(&task, "Task3", 2048, NULL, 3, NULL, 1);
#endif

#if 1
    xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(&task, "Task1", 2048, NULL, 1, NULL, 0);
    xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(&task, "Task2", 2048, NULL, 2, NULL, 1);
    xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(&task, "Task3", 2048, NULL, 3, NULL, 0);
#endif
}

Case 1
Task3(Most high priority) doesn't start first.
Task3 begins after Task2 ends.

I (239) main: start RealId=52685 CoreId=0 Priority=1
I (239) main: portTICK_PERIOD_MS=10[ms]
I (239) main: configMAX_PRIORITIES=25
I (249) Task2: start RealId=52685 CoreId=0 Priority=2
I (249) Task1: start RealId=43947 CoreId=1 Priority=1
I (2259) Task2: end RealId=52685 CoreId=0 Priority=2
I (2259) Task3: start RealId=43947 CoreId=1 Priority=3
I (4269) Task3: end RealId=43947 CoreId=1 Priority=3
I (4269) Task1: end RealId=43947 CoreId=1 Priority=1

Case 2
Task3(Most high priority) start first.

I (240) main: start RealId=52685 CoreId=0 Priority=1
I (240) main: portTICK_PERIOD_MS=10[ms]
I (240) main: configMAX_PRIORITIES=25
I (250) Task3: start RealId=52685 CoreId=0 Priority=3
I (250) Task2: start RealId=43947 CoreId=1 Priority=2
I (2260) Task3: end RealId=52685 CoreId=0 Priority=3
I (2260) Task1: start RealId=52685 CoreId=0 Priority=1
I (2270) Task2: end RealId=43947 CoreId=1 Priority=2
I (4270) Task1: end RealId=52685 CoreId=0 Priority=1

chegewara · 2019-02-25T14:40:38Z

I dont know how to explain this more clearly. This code is occupying all core time and 3rd task (3rd xCreateTask) wont be called as long as it is running:

    while(1) {
      nowTick = xTaskGetTickCount();
      if (nowTick > endTick) break;
    }

If you replace it with vTaskDelay then 3rd xCreateTask will start immediately, before task1 or task2 will end.

nopnop2002 · 2019-02-25T14:51:56Z

I know that If i replace it with vTaskDelay then 3rd xCreateTask will start immediately, before task1 or task2 will end.

But i can't understand why task3 that have priority 3 start after task2 that have priority 2.

At 249 Tick time, CoreID 1 is empty.

chegewara · 2019-02-25T15:03:22Z

Please try this:

#if 1
    ESP_LOGI(__func__, "before task 1 start");
    xTaskCreate(&task, "Task1", 2048, NULL, 1, NULL);
    ESP_LOGI(__func__, "before task 2 start");
    xTaskCreate(&task, "Task2", 2048, NULL, 2, NULL);
    ESP_LOGI(__func__, "before task 3 start");
    xTaskCreate(&task, "Task3", 2048, NULL, 3, NULL);
#endif

At 249 Tick time, CoreID 1 is empty.

Its not true. Look at logs:

I (249) Task2: start RealId=52685 CoreId=0 Priority=2
I (249) Task1: start RealId=43947 CoreId=1 Priority=1

Task2 is running on core 0 and Task1 is running on core 1. Both cores are occupied.

nopnop2002 · 2019-02-25T15:29:21Z

I understood a reason.
main task is running on CoreId=0.
Task2 begin with priority 2 using CoreID=0.
main task is deprived of execution rights by this timing.
So main task can't generate Task3.

I (239) main: start RealId=52685 CoreId=0 Priority=1
I (239) main: portTICK_PERIOD_MS=10[ms]
I (239) main: configMAX_PRIORITIES=25
I (249) Task2: start RealId=52685 CoreId=0 Priority=2
I (249) Task1: start RealId=43947 CoreId=1 Priority=1
I (2259) Task2: end RealId=52685 CoreId=0 Priority=2
I (2259) Task3: start RealId=43947 CoreId=1 Priority=3
I (4269) Task3: end RealId=43947 CoreId=1 Priority=3
I (4269) Task1: end RealId=43947 CoreId=1 Priority=1

My conclusion
xPortGetCoreID is not working properly.
xTaskCreatePinnedToCore shouldn't use it.

Thank you.

Dazza0 · 2019-02-26T08:58:40Z

A few things to note

When creating a task with no affinity (i.e. calling xTaskCreate()), the preemption rules are as follows (see source):
- If the task has higher priority than the current priority of both cores, it will preempt the core with the lower priority.
- If the both cores have a equal current priority that is lower than the created task, the task will prefer to preempt the current core (i.e. the core that called xTaskCreate())
- If the created task has equal priority to the current priority of one or both cores, the created task will round robin on the next tick.
When creating a task with affinity (i.e. calling xTaskCreatePinnedToCore()), the preemption rules are simpler (see source)
- If the current priority of the target core is lower than that of the created task, the task will preempt the core
- If the current priority of the target core is equal to that of the created task, the task will round robin with that core
- If the current priority of the target core is higher than that of the created task, the task will not run preempt or round robin
When app_main() starts running, it is incorrect to assume that core1 is running IDLE1 at the same time. Instead, it is entirely possible that core 1 is still initializing during which multiple other tasks of higher priorities are created (e.g. ipc, dport, timer service, esp_timer etc). I suggest you add a vTaskDelay(10) at the very beginning of app_main(). This will give sufficient time for all initialization to complete, and ensure that when your own code starts running, core 0 is running app_main() and core 1 is running IDLE1.
xPortGetCoreID() should be working. The reason the start and end core can be different is because it is possible that an unpinned task can be preempted/round robin across the two cores cores whilst running ConsumptionTick(). Use a critical section or scheduler suspension to prevent a task from being switched out.

chegewara · 2019-02-26T09:10:50Z

@Dazza0 it sounds reasonable, but what about those logs:

I (71) task-test: [Task1] start CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (76) task-test: [Task2] start CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (282) task-test: [Task1] end CoreID=1 Priority=1
I (287) task-test: [Task2] end CoreID=1 Priority=2
I (76) app_main: before task 3 start
I (287) task-test: [Task3] start CoreID=1 Priority=3
I (493) task-test: [Task3] end CoreID=1 Priority=3

As we can see Task1 and Task2 are running simultaneously on different cores but xPortGetCoreID reported core 1 for both. Can it be because of this:

When app_main() starts running, it is incorrect to assume that core1 is running IDLE1 at the same time. Instead, it is entirely possible that core 1 is still initializing during which multiple other tasks of higher priorities are created (e.g. ipc, dport, timer service, esp_timer etc). I suggest you add a vTaskDelay(10) at the very beginning of app_main(). This will give sufficient time for all initialization to complete, and ensure that when your own code starts running, core 0 is running app_main() and core 1 is running IDLE1

negativekelvin · 2019-02-26T09:54:54Z

That is really weird, even with delay and increased priority both tasks switch cores exactly in between the calls to get the core id resulting in a mismatch?

I (1636) task-test: [Task1] start CoreID=43947 cpu_id=1 Priority=5
I (1636) task-test: [Task2] start CoreID=52685 cpu_id=0 Priority=6
I (3646) task-test: [Task1] end CoreID=52685 cpu_id=1 Priority=5
I (3646) task-test: [Task2] end CoreID=43947 cpu_id=0 Priority=6

Edit: even when inside a critical section they don't match.

igrr · 2019-02-26T10:25:08Z

Perhaps xPortGetCoreID doesn't have __volatile__ in its __asm__, and the 2nd call gets optimized out?

@negativekelvin can you please post the exact source you are compiling for this test?

negativekelvin · 2019-02-26T10:34:28Z

code

/* The example of esp-idf
 *
 * This sample code is in the public domain.
 */
#include <stdio.h>
#include "freertos/FreeRTOS.h"
#include "freertos/task.h"
#include "esp_log.h"
#include "esp_system.h"
static const char *TAG = "task-test";


void ConsumptionTick(int delay) {
    TickType_t startTick;
    TickType_t endTick;
    TickType_t nowTick;
    startTick = xTaskGetTickCount();
    endTick = startTick + delay;
    //printf("startTick=%d endTick=%d\n",startTick,endTick);
    uint32_t ccount = xthal_get_ccount();
    while (xthal_get_ccount() - ccount < 2000000 * CONFIG_ESP32_DEFAULT_CPU_FREQ_MHZ) {
        ccount = ccount;
    }
}

void task1(void *pvParameter)
{
    static portMUX_TYPE task1_spinlock = portMUX_INITIALIZER_UNLOCKED;
    char * my_name = pcTaskGetTaskName( NULL );
    int cpu_id;
    UBaseType_t my_prio = uxTaskPriorityGet( NULL );
    int id;
    portENTER_CRITICAL(&task1_spinlock);
    cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID();
    __asm__  volatile (
        "rsr.prid %0\n"
        :"=r"(id));
    portEXIT_CRITICAL(&task1_spinlock);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] start CoreID=%d cpu_id=%d Priority=%d",my_name, id,cpu_id, my_prio);
    ConsumptionTick(200);
    portENTER_CRITICAL(&task1_spinlock);
    cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID();
    __asm__ volatile (
        "rsr.prid %0\n"
        :"=r"(id));
    portEXIT_CRITICAL(&task1_spinlock);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] end CoreID=%d cpu_id=%d Priority=%d",my_name, id, cpu_id, my_prio);
    vTaskDelete( NULL );
}

void task2(void *pvParameter)
{
    static portMUX_TYPE task2_spinlock = portMUX_INITIALIZER_UNLOCKED;
    char * my_name = pcTaskGetTaskName( NULL );
    int cpu_id;
    UBaseType_t my_prio = uxTaskPriorityGet( NULL );
    int id;
    portENTER_CRITICAL(&task2_spinlock);
    cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID();
    __asm__  volatile (
        "rsr.prid %0\n"
        :"=r"(id));
    portEXIT_CRITICAL(&task2_spinlock);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] start CoreID=%d cpu_id=%d Priority=%d",my_name, id,cpu_id, my_prio);
    ConsumptionTick(200);
    portENTER_CRITICAL(&task2_spinlock);
    cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID();
    __asm__ volatile (
        "rsr.prid %0\n"
        :"=r"(id));
    portEXIT_CRITICAL(&task2_spinlock);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] end CoreID=%d cpu_id=%d Priority=%d",my_name, id, cpu_id, my_prio);
    vTaskDelete( NULL );
}

void app_main()
{
    vTaskDelay(100);
    char * my_name = pcTaskGetTaskName(NULL);
    int cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID();
    UBaseType_t my_prio = uxTaskPriorityGet( NULL );
 
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] start CoreID=%d Priority=%d",my_name, cpu_id, my_prio);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] portTICK_PERIOD_MS=%d[ms]",my_name, portTICK_PERIOD_MS);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] configMAX_PRIORITIES=%d",my_name, configMAX_PRIORITIES);
    ESP_LOGI(TAG, "[%s] configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE=%d",my_name, configMINIMAL_STACK_SIZE);

#if 1
    xTaskCreate(&task1, "Task1", 2048, NULL, 5, NULL);
    xTaskCreate(&task2, "Task2", 2048, NULL, 6, NULL);
#endif

#if 0
    xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(&task, "Task1", 2048, NULL, 1, NULL, 1);
    xTaskCreatePinnedToCore(&task, "Task2", 2048, NULL, 2, NULL, 1);
#endif
}

Dazza0 · 2019-02-26T12:13:42Z

@negativekelvin I'm not be able recreate your issue, but looking at the assembly code of task2() , it appears that the final compiled code will only call cpu_id = xPortGetCoreID() once. I've compiled the code for task2() with xPortCoreID() as is, and with xPortCoreID() is being made volatile. Note that both compilations were at Debug (-Og) optimization level.

Assembly when xPortGetCoreID() is NOT volatile

(gdb) disassemble task2
Dump of assembler code for function task2:
   0x400d221c <+0>:     entry   a1, 48
   0x400d221f <+3>:     movi.n  a10, 0
   0x400d2221 <+5>:     call8   0x400854fc <pcTaskGetTaskName>
   0x400d2224 <+8>:     mov.n   a6, a10
   0x400d2226 <+10>:    movi.n  a10, 0
   0x400d2228 <+12>:    call8   0x40085a70 <uxTaskPriorityGet>
   0x400d222b <+15>:    mov.n   a7, a10
   0x400d222d <+17>:    l32r    a4, 0x400d0324 <_stext+780>
   0x400d2230 <+20>:    mov.n   a10, a4
   0x400d2232 <+22>:    call8   0x40085588 <vTaskEnterCritical>
   0x400d2235 <+25>:    rsr.prid        a3
   0x400d2238 <+28>:    extui   a3, a3, 13, 1
   0x400d223b <+31>:    rsr.prid        a5
   0x400d223e <+34>:    mov.n   a10, a4
   0x400d2240 <+36>:    call8   0x40085634 <vTaskExitCritical>
   0x400d2243 <+39>:    call8   0x40082648 <esp_log_timestamp>
   0x400d2246 <+42>:    l32r    a2, 0x400d0318 <_stext+768>
   0x400d2249 <+45>:    s32i.n  a7, a1, 8
   0x400d224b <+47>:    s32i.n  a3, a1, 4
   0x400d224d <+49>:    s32i.n  a5, a1, 0
   0x400d224f <+51>:    mov.n   a15, a6
   0x400d2251 <+53>:    mov.n   a14, a2
   0x400d2253 <+55>:    mov.n   a13, a10
   0x400d2255 <+57>:    l32r    a12, 0x400d031c <_stext+772>
   0x400d2258 <+60>:    mov.n   a11, a2
   0x400d225a <+62>:    movi.n  a10, 3
   0x400d225c <+64>:    call8   0x400824fc <esp_log_write>
   0x400d225f <+67>:    movi    a10, 200
   0x400d2262 <+70>:    call8   0x400d2184 <ConsumptionTick>
   0x400d2265 <+73>:    mov.n   a10, a4
   0x400d2267 <+75>:    call8   0x40085588 <vTaskEnterCritical>
   0x400d226a <+78>:    rsr.prid        a5
   0x400d226d <+81>:    mov.n   a10, a4
   0x400d226f <+83>:    call8   0x40085634 <vTaskExitCritical>
   0x400d2272 <+86>:    call8   0x40082648 <esp_log_timestamp>
   0x400d2275 <+89>:    s32i.n  a7, a1, 8
   0x400d2277 <+91>:    s32i.n  a3, a1, 4
   0x400d2279 <+93>:    s32i.n  a5, a1, 0
   0x400d227b <+95>:    mov.n   a15, a6
   0x400d227d <+97>:    mov.n   a14, a2
   0x400d227f <+99>:    mov.n   a13, a10
   0x400d2281 <+101>:   l32r    a12, 0x400d0320 <_stext+776>
   0x400d2284 <+104>:   mov.n   a11, a2
   0x400d2286 <+106>:   movi.n  a10, 3
   0x400d2288 <+108>:   call8   0x400824fc <esp_log_write>
   0x400d228b <+111>:   movi.n  a10, 0
   0x400d228d <+113>:   call8   0x400858f4 <vTaskDelete>
   0x400d2290 <+116>:   retw.n

Notice how at the first critical section (from +22 to +36), both xPortGetCoreID() and the inline assembly are called. However in the second critical section (from +75 to +83), only the inline assembly code is called. This may explain the mismatch of CoreID and cpu_id as the task may truly have switched cores whilst running ConsumptionTick(), but the old value of cpu_id was still being used due to compiler optimization.

Assembly when xPortGetCoreID() IS volatile

(gdb) disassemble task2
Dump of assembler code for function task2:
   0x400d2228 <+0>:     entry   a1, 48
   0x400d222b <+3>:     movi    a10, 0
   0x400d222e <+6>:     call8   0x40085520 <pcTaskGetTaskName>
   0x400d2231 <+9>:     mov.n   a6, a10
   0x400d2233 <+11>:    movi.n  a10, 0
   0x400d2235 <+13>:    call8   0x40085a98 <uxTaskPriorityGet>
   0x400d2238 <+16>:    mov.n   a7, a10
   0x400d223a <+18>:    l32r    a3, 0x400d0324 <_stext+780>
   0x400d223d <+21>:    or      a10, a3, a3
   0x400d2240 <+24>:    call8   0x400855ac <vTaskEnterCritical>
   0x400d2243 <+27>:    rsr.prid        a5
   0x400d2246 <+30>:    extui   a5, a5, 13, 1
   0x400d2249 <+33>:    rsr.prid        a4
   0x400d224c <+36>:    mov.n   a10, a3
   0x400d224e <+38>:    call8   0x40085658 <vTaskExitCritical>
   0x400d2251 <+41>:    call8   0x40082648 <esp_log_timestamp>
   0x400d2254 <+44>:    l32r    a2, 0x400d0318 <_stext+768>
   0x400d2257 <+47>:    s32i.n  a7, a1, 8
   0x400d2259 <+49>:    s32i.n  a5, a1, 4
   0x400d225b <+51>:    s32i.n  a4, a1, 0
   0x400d225d <+53>:    mov.n   a15, a6
   0x400d225f <+55>:    mov.n   a14, a2
   0x400d2261 <+57>:    mov.n   a13, a10
   0x400d2263 <+59>:    l32r    a12, 0x400d031c <_stext+772>
   0x400d2266 <+62>:    mov.n   a11, a2
   0x400d2268 <+64>:    movi    a10, 3
   0x400d226b <+67>:    call8   0x400824fc <esp_log_write>
   0x400d226e <+70>:    movi    a10, 200
   0x400d2271 <+73>:    call8   0x400d2188 <ConsumptionTick>
   0x400d2274 <+76>:    mov.n   a10, a3
   0x400d2276 <+78>:    call8   0x400855ac <vTaskEnterCritical>
   0x400d2279 <+81>:    rsr.prid        a5
   0x400d227c <+84>:    extui   a5, a5, 13, 1
   0x400d227f <+87>:    rsr.prid        a4
   0x400d2282 <+90>:    mov.n   a10, a3
   0x400d2284 <+92>:    call8   0x40085658 <vTaskExitCritical>
   0x400d2287 <+95>:    call8   0x40082648 <esp_log_timestamp>
   0x400d228a <+98>:    s32i.n  a7, a1, 8
   0x400d228c <+100>:   s32i.n  a5, a1, 4
   0x400d228e <+102>:   s32i.n  a4, a1, 0
   0x400d2290 <+104>:   mov.n   a15, a6
   0x400d2292 <+106>:   mov.n   a14, a2
   0x400d2294 <+108>:   mov.n   a13, a10
   0x400d2296 <+110>:   l32r    a12, 0x400d0320 <_stext+776>
   0x400d2299 <+113>:   mov.n   a11, a2
   0x400d229b <+115>:   movi.n  a10, 3
   0x400d229d <+117>:   call8   0x400824fc <esp_log_write>
   0x400d22a0 <+120>:   movi.n  a10, 0
   0x400d22a2 <+122>:   call8   0x40085918 <vTaskDelete>
   0x400d22a5 <+125>:   retw.n

However, when the assembly in `xPortGerCoreID()` is made volatile, the code between the two critical sections are identical.

negativekelvin · 2019-02-26T13:43:36Z

Ok so will you add volatile keyword to xPortGetCoreID?

Dazza0 · 2019-02-26T14:52:25Z

@negativekelvin yes

When xPortGetCoreID() is called twice within a function, it might only be called once after compilation. This commit makes the inline assembly of the function volatile. Closes #3093

Dazza0 self-assigned this Feb 25, 2019

igrr closed this as completed in 3576e54 Feb 28, 2019

igrr pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 1, 2019

freertos: Make xPortGetCoreID() volatile

66a0b64

When xPortGetCoreID() is called twice within a function, it might only be called once after compilation. This commit makes the inline assembly of the function volatile. Closes #3093

igrr pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 6, 2019

freertos: Make xPortGetCoreID() volatile

4c4acd8

When xPortGetCoreID() is called twice within a function, it might only be called once after compilation. This commit makes the inline assembly of the function volatile. Closes #3093

igrr pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 16, 2019

freertos: Make xPortGetCoreID() volatile

5bbb991

When xPortGetCoreID() is called twice within a function, it might only be called once after compilation. This commit makes the inline assembly of the function volatile. Closes #3093

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

xTaskCreate ignore the priority. #3093

xTaskCreate ignore the priority. #3093

nopnop2002 commented Feb 24, 2019

chegewara commented Feb 24, 2019

negativekelvin commented Feb 24, 2019

nopnop2002 commented Feb 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading

nopnop2002 commented Feb 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading

chegewara commented Feb 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading

chegewara commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

negativekelvin commented Feb 25, 2019

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

negativekelvin commented Feb 25, 2019

chegewara commented Feb 25, 2019

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

chegewara commented Feb 25, 2019

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

chegewara commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

Dazza0 commented Feb 26, 2019

chegewara commented Feb 26, 2019

negativekelvin commented Feb 26, 2019 •

edited

Loading

igrr commented Feb 26, 2019 •

edited

Loading

negativekelvin commented Feb 26, 2019 •

edited

Loading

Dazza0 commented Feb 26, 2019 •

edited

Loading

negativekelvin commented Feb 26, 2019

Dazza0 commented Feb 26, 2019

xTaskCreate ignore the priority. #3093

xTaskCreate ignore the priority. #3093

Comments

nopnop2002 commented Feb 24, 2019

chegewara commented Feb 24, 2019

negativekelvin commented Feb 24, 2019

nopnop2002 commented Feb 24, 2019 • edited Loading

nopnop2002 commented Feb 24, 2019 • edited Loading

chegewara commented Feb 24, 2019 • edited Loading

chegewara commented Feb 25, 2019 • edited Loading

negativekelvin commented Feb 25, 2019

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 • edited Loading

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 • edited Loading

negativekelvin commented Feb 25, 2019

chegewara commented Feb 25, 2019

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 • edited Loading

chegewara commented Feb 25, 2019

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 • edited Loading

chegewara commented Feb 25, 2019 • edited Loading

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 • edited Loading

Dazza0 commented Feb 26, 2019

chegewara commented Feb 26, 2019

negativekelvin commented Feb 26, 2019 • edited Loading

igrr commented Feb 26, 2019 • edited Loading

negativekelvin commented Feb 26, 2019 • edited Loading

Dazza0 commented Feb 26, 2019 • edited Loading

negativekelvin commented Feb 26, 2019

Dazza0 commented Feb 26, 2019

nopnop2002 commented Feb 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading

nopnop2002 commented Feb 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading

chegewara commented Feb 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading

chegewara commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

chegewara commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

nopnop2002 commented Feb 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

negativekelvin commented Feb 26, 2019 •

edited

Loading

igrr commented Feb 26, 2019 •

edited

Loading

negativekelvin commented Feb 26, 2019 •

edited

Loading

Dazza0 commented Feb 26, 2019 •

edited

Loading