Add framework for configuring boot stack size #8039

c1728p9 · 2018-09-07T16:13:14Z

Description

Add the target config option "boot-stack-size" which is passed to the linker as the define "MBED_BOOT_STACK_SIZE" so the linker can adjust the stack accordingly. On mbed 2 the boot stack becomes the main stack after boot. On mbed 5 the boot stack becomes the ISR stack after boot. Because of these different uses the stack size for mbed 2 is set to 4K by default while on mbed 5 it is set to 1k.

Additionally, the NRF5X family requires a larger interrupt stack sizedue to the softdevice so the size is increased to 2k on mbed 5 builds.

Pull request type

[ ] Fix
[ ] Refactor
[ ] Target update
[x] Functionality change
[ ] Breaking change

Add the target config option "boot-stack-size" which is passed to the linker as the define "MBED_BOOT_STACK_SIZE" so the linker can adjust the stack accordingly. On mbed 2 the boot stack becomes the main stack after boot. On mbed 5 the boot stack becomes the ISR stack after boot. Because of these different uses the stack size for mbed 2 is set to 4K by default while on mbed 5 it is set to 1k. Additionally, the NRF5X family requires a larger interrupt stack size due to the softdevice so the size is increased to 2k on mbed 5 builds.

Update the K64F linker scripts to make use of the newly added stack size target config.

c1728p9 · 2018-09-07T16:15:33Z

...GET_Freescale/TARGET_MCUXpresso_MCUS/TARGET_MCU_K64F/device/TOOLCHAIN_IAR/MK64FN1M0xxx12.icf

+    define symbol MBED_BOOT_STACK_SIZE = 0x400;
+}
+
+define symbol __stack_size__=MBED_BOOT_STACK_SIZE;


@theotherjimmy does the name MBED_BOOT_STACK_SIZE seems reasonable to you? Alternatively I could set this to the target define that is set - MBED_CONF_TARGET_BOOT_STACK_SIZE. Let me know what you think.

c1728p9 · 2018-09-07T16:16:24Z

tools/toolchains/__init__.py

+        if stack_param in params:
+            define_string = self.make_ld_define("MBED_BOOT_STACK_SIZE", int(params[stack_param].value, 0))
+            self.ld.append(define_string)
+            self.flags["ld"].append(define_string)


@theotherjimmy this is how the target define is getting passed to the linker script. Is this the right way to do it or would you like any changes made here?

That looks fine.

c1728p9 · 2018-09-07T16:19:30Z

This should unblock #7238 as this mechanism allows the boot stack size to be correctly configured for all 3 toolchains in both mbed 2 and mbed 5.

mprse

This is great. Well done :-)

mprse · 2018-09-10T08:43:08Z

rtos/mbed_lib.json

@@ -3,5 +3,22 @@
    "config": {
        "present": 1
    },
-    "macros": ["_RTE_"]
+    "macros": ["_RTE_"],
+    "target_overrides": {


In targets/targets.json file boot-stack-size is set to 4kB and here is modified and set to 1kB with some exceptions (like for NRF boards).
Is this done to distinguish stack size for builds with and without RTOS (4kB for non RTOS and typically 1kB for builds with RTOS)?

Yep, by default stack sizes are 4K and they are overridden to 1K when the RTOS is present. Targets with special requirements on stack size, such as the nrf51, can further override for both the RTOS and non-RTOS configuration.

mprse · 2018-09-10T08:50:07Z

..._Freescale/TARGET_MCUXpresso_MCUS/TARGET_MCU_K64F/device/TOOLCHAIN_GCC_ARM/MK64FN1M0xxx12.ld

+ * the stack where main runs is determined via the RTOS. */
+__stack_size__ = MBED_BOOT_STACK_SIZE;
+
+__heap_size__ = 0x6000;


It looks like __heap_size__ and HEAP_SIZE symbols now are unused and can be removed.
It would be enough to define STACK_SIZE = MBED_BOOT_STACK_SIZE or even remove also STACK_SIZE and use MBED_BOOT_STACK_SIZE instead.

deepikabhavnani · 2018-09-10T19:33:13Z

rtos/mbed_lib.json

+            "target.boot-stack-size": "0x400"
+        },
+	    "MCU_NRF51": {
+	        "target.boot-stack-size": "0x800"


Will it be good to move these overrides in targets.json instead?

The size in targets.json is the size for mbed 2 - 0x1000, while rtos/mbed_lib.json is for mbed 5 - 0x400. In the case of the nrf5x the interrupt stack needs to be customized for mbed 5 only so it is set to 0x800 here.

theotherjimmy

Tools and config changes look fine.

bulislaw

LGTM would be good to add some info to the porting guide.

NirSonnenschein · 2018-10-03T09:46:07Z

/morph build

mbed-ci · 2018-10-03T13:08:40Z

Build : SUCCESS

Build number : 3223
Build artifacts/logs : http://mbed-os.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/?prefix=builds/8039/

Triggering tests

/morph test
/morph mbed2-build

mbed-ci · 2018-10-03T19:42:03Z

Test : FAILURE

Build number : 3026
Test logs :http://mbed-os-logs.s3-website-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/?prefix=logs/8039/3026

studavekar · 2018-10-06T20:47:51Z

/morph test
/morph export-build

mbed-ci · 2018-10-07T00:13:44Z

Exporter Build : FAILURE

Build number : 2880
Build artifacts/logs : http://mbed-os.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/?prefix=builds/exporter/8039/

mbed-ci · 2018-10-07T04:04:51Z

Test : SUCCESS

Build number : 3071
Test logs :http://mbed-os-logs.s3-website-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/?prefix=logs/8039/3071

NirSonnenschein · 2018-10-07T08:34:36Z

/morph export-build

mbed-ci · 2018-10-07T09:59:56Z

Exporter Build : SUCCESS

Build number : 2885
Build artifacts/logs : http://mbed-os.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/?prefix=builds/exporter/8039/

JaniSuonpera · 2018-10-25T10:29:45Z

@cmonr Why only for target K64F? I think that same kind changes are needed other target e.g. K66F.

0xc0170 · 2018-10-25T10:56:25Z

@cmonr Why only for target K64F? I think that same kind changes are needed other target e.g. K66F.

@c1728p9 Review the latest question - This new configuration is applied to set of targets - should be done for all?

JaniSuonpera · 2018-10-25T11:03:42Z

Yes, I think so.

c1728p9 · 2018-10-25T15:40:44Z

@JaniSuonpera the rest of the targets were going to be updated in #7238. I think @mprse is making a new PR for this.

jeromecoutant · 2018-12-13T09:23:16Z

the rest of the targets were going to be updated in #7238

Now this PR has been closed, who is in charge to update all the targets ?

0xc0170 · 2018-12-13T11:18:39Z

@mprse Can you review?

mprse · 2018-12-13T12:57:48Z

Now this PR has been closed, who is in charge to update all the targets ?

I'm working on it. PR should be ready today or tomorrow.

The following commits: ARMmbed#8039, ARMmbed#9092 added Boot/ISR stack definition to all scatter files (ARM_LIB_STACK). This has changed memory model for RTOS-less builds to 2-region memory model and caused failure in case of rtos less builds. This PR defines valid heap/stack regions for rtos-less builds.

c1728p9 added 2 commits September 7, 2018 16:31

Update the K64F to use boot stack size config

66cce67

Update the K64F linker scripts to make use of the newly added stack size target config.

c1728p9 requested review from theotherjimmy and mprse September 7, 2018 16:13

c1728p9 commented Sep 7, 2018

View reviewed changes

cmonr added the needs: review label Sep 7, 2018

mprse approved these changes Sep 10, 2018

View reviewed changes

deepikabhavnani reviewed Sep 10, 2018

View reviewed changes

theotherjimmy approved these changes Sep 11, 2018

View reviewed changes

bulislaw approved these changes Sep 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

deepikabhavnani approved these changes Sep 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

c1728p9 mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2018

Update linker script templates to include stack ARMmbed/mbed-os-5-docs#739

Merged

cmonr added needs: CI and removed needs: review labels Sep 21, 2018

mprse mentioned this pull request Sep 26, 2018

Stack unification and test #7238

Closed

0xc0170 approved these changes Sep 26, 2018

View reviewed changes

0xc0170 added the release-version: 5.11.0-rc1 label Sep 26, 2018

NirSonnenschein added ready for merge and removed needs: CI labels Oct 7, 2018

cmonr merged commit b7cf1ab into ARMmbed:master Oct 8, 2018

cmonr removed the ready for merge label Oct 8, 2018

c1728p9 deleted the stack_size_framework branch October 25, 2018 15:40

ccli8 mentioned this pull request Dec 12, 2018

Support configuring stack size in RTOS-less build #6813

Closed

mprse mentioned this pull request Dec 13, 2018

Interrupt stack size unification + test #9092

Merged

ccli8 mentioned this pull request Dec 14, 2018

Nuvoton: Support boot stack size configuration option #9102

Merged

mprse mentioned this pull request Jan 11, 2019

Add GD32_E103VB as new target #9203

Merged

deepikabhavnani mentioned this pull request Jan 28, 2019

Non Rtos build fails for ARM compiler #9523

Closed

mprse mentioned this pull request Jan 31, 2019

Update to 2-region model for HEAP and Stack Memory #9571

Merged

mprse mentioned this pull request Aug 17, 2020

Question on MBED_BOOT_STACK_SIZE #10319

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add framework for configuring boot stack size #8039

Add framework for configuring boot stack size #8039

c1728p9 commented Sep 7, 2018

c1728p9 Sep 7, 2018

c1728p9 Sep 7, 2018

theotherjimmy Sep 11, 2018

c1728p9 commented Sep 7, 2018

mprse left a comment

mprse Sep 10, 2018

c1728p9 Sep 10, 2018

mprse Sep 10, 2018

deepikabhavnani Sep 10, 2018

c1728p9 Sep 11, 2018

theotherjimmy left a comment

bulislaw left a comment

NirSonnenschein commented Oct 3, 2018

mbed-ci commented Oct 3, 2018

mbed-ci commented Oct 3, 2018

studavekar commented Oct 6, 2018

mbed-ci commented Oct 7, 2018

mbed-ci commented Oct 7, 2018

NirSonnenschein commented Oct 7, 2018

mbed-ci commented Oct 7, 2018

JaniSuonpera commented Oct 25, 2018

0xc0170 commented Oct 25, 2018

JaniSuonpera commented Oct 25, 2018

c1728p9 commented Oct 25, 2018

jeromecoutant commented Dec 13, 2018

0xc0170 commented Dec 13, 2018

mprse commented Dec 13, 2018

Add framework for configuring boot stack size #8039

Add framework for configuring boot stack size #8039

Conversation

c1728p9 commented Sep 7, 2018

Description

Pull request type

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

c1728p9 commented Sep 7, 2018

mprse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

theotherjimmy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bulislaw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

NirSonnenschein commented Oct 3, 2018

mbed-ci commented Oct 3, 2018

Triggering tests

mbed-ci commented Oct 3, 2018

studavekar commented Oct 6, 2018

mbed-ci commented Oct 7, 2018

mbed-ci commented Oct 7, 2018

NirSonnenschein commented Oct 7, 2018

mbed-ci commented Oct 7, 2018

JaniSuonpera commented Oct 25, 2018

0xc0170 commented Oct 25, 2018

JaniSuonpera commented Oct 25, 2018

c1728p9 commented Oct 25, 2018

jeromecoutant commented Dec 13, 2018

0xc0170 commented Dec 13, 2018

mprse commented Dec 13, 2018