hujun260 commented on code in PR #18284:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/18284#discussion_r2753060479
##########
sched/clock/clock_sched_ticks.c:
##########
@@ -62,13 +64,13 @@ static volatile clock_t g_system_ticks =
INITIAL_SYSTEM_TIMER_TICKS;
void clock_increase_sched_ticks(clock_t ticks)
{
+ irqstate_t flags;
+
/* Increment the per-tick scheduler counter */
-#ifdef CONFIG_SYSTEM_TIME64
- atomic64_fetch_add((FAR atomic64_t *)&g_system_ticks, ticks);
-#else
- atomic_fetch_add((FAR atomic_t *)&g_system_ticks, ticks);
-#endif
+ flags = write_seqlock_irqsave(&g_system_tick_lock);
Review Comment:
> I noticed this change was also submitted by you earlier. So are you trying
to contradict your own previous conclusion?
>
> #15414
>
> In that case, I think what you should address is the atomic64 issue.
Because on 64-bit platforms, using atomic operations directly would be a more
straightforward approach.
1 My submission https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15414 did not introduce
a new issue; it merely had an oversight.
2 The code that is actually problematic has existed for a long time.
```
clock_t sample;
clock_t verify;
/* 64-bit accesses are not atomic on most architectures. The following
* loop samples the 64-bit counter twice and retries in the rare case
* that a 32-bit rollover occurs between samples.
*
* If no 32-bit rollover occurs:
* - The MS 32 bits of both samples will be identical, and
* - The LS 32 bits of the second sample will be greater than or equal
* to those of the first.
*/
do
{
verify = g_system_ticks;
sample= g_system_ticks;
}
while ((sample & TIMER_MASK32) < (verify & TIMER_MASK32) ||
(sample & ~TIMER_MASK32) != (verify & ~TIMER_MASK32));
return sample;
```
3 While 64-bit atomic operations are indeed feasible on 64-bit platforms,
but the majority of NuttX applications still run on 32-bit platforms. To avoid
making the code overly complex with macros, we opted for a unified approach.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
