Hello Saurabh,
On 11/09/15 02:14, Saurabh Gadia wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
Sorry for late reply. I was out of town and could not reply. I am bit
confused with above description which I need to get clarified:
1. replaced LIFO with sorted list: I don't change the mutex order to make
the list sorted. Instead I promote the priorities so that we don't need to
change position of mutex in the chain and the list without any swapping of
mutex in chain becomes sorted and valid.
2. I was confused with spsem03 test cases. So I created spsem04 test case
which demonstrates that our implementation supports horizontal
implementation. It has the same scenario of test case 3 but now we can say
that horizontal nesting works correctly. you can find all description about
this test cases on link below.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RM427RKSoyrZrchEcDIx4etmtWqrFArzRRLWqcU8RK0/edit?usp=sharing
sorry, I should have looked more carefully at your code. I missed the direct
recursion in _Thread_Update_Priority_UP() during my first review. A
limitless direct or indirect recursion a this level is absolutely
unacceptable since this may corrupt the thread stack. This is not a real
problem since it would be easy to change this into an iteration.
So the basic structure of your solution is similar to what I suggested in
the ticket.
3. Your mentioned example is definitely supported by the our
implementation.
I also need clarification on ticket 2412:
1. Is there something wrong with problem description?
it says - "The allocator mutex is already owned, so the priority of
the low priority thread is raised to the priority of the high priority
thread. The memory allocation completes and the allocator mutex is released,
since the low priority thread still owns the file system instance mutex it
continues to execute with the high priority (the high priority thread is not
scheduled)"
Instead --> after releasing lock over allocator the low priority threads
priority will no longer be high as there is restoration of priority of on
mutex release. This is the behavior with our implementation. So low priority
thread will again be restored at its original priority after releasing
allocator lock.
*I am not able to get what do we have to do in this ticket like what is
the problem we are trying to solve(objective, current behavior)
*
The problem description refers to the current master without your patch.
*
*
2. Our implementation is only for strict order mutex behavior and will not
work for unordered mutex operations. We will need complete different
implementation for unordered mutex operation.
Unfortunately we have unordered mutex operations in the real world, e.g.
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=blob;f=newlib/libc/stdio/fclose.c;h=cd271c490b2652db71727c9af8a19a14f3b36336;hb=HEAD#l112
This is why I suggested to use one priority queue per thread that aggregates
all the priorities a thread has access to due to its owned mutexes (directly
and indirectly). In addition this avoids additional storage space in the
mutex object, which is important.
3. Our SMP implementation has recursive mutex acquisition behavior for
supporting horizontal nesting? Will it be fine with RTEMS?
There are several race conditions on SMP configurations in your code, e.g.
_Thread_queue_Release( &the_mutex->Wait_queue, lock_context );
_Thread_Change_priority_UP( holder, the_mutex,
executing->current_priority, false);
will not work on SMP, since the holder may have changed after the
Thread_queue_Release().
A recursive SMP lock acquire is a bit problematic, since you need a context
for each acquire/release pair. There are some options to solve this problem,
but we have to make some trade-offs. Recursive mutex acquire may lead to
deadlocks, so we must take care that we don't get deadlocks, since this
would result in an infinite loop with interrupts disabled.
note: *Cyrille* please mention any other doubts if I have missed any.
Thanks,
Saurabh Gadia
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
<mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
Hello Saurabh,
On 05/09/15 01:52, Saurabh Gadia wrote:
This is the patch for solving priority inversion problem for
uniprocessor architecture. It works correctly for all test
cases on master. For 4.11 the patch get applied cleanly but
the branch does not compile because of some rbtree
error(unrelated to project). Github link:
https://github.com/saurabhgadia4/rtems/tree/nested-mutex
I reviewed your patch. Basically you replaced the LIFO list of
priorities with a sorted list? Does it work with timeouts and
external priority changes (e.g. task A blocks on a mutex owned by
O, another task B raises the priority of A, will this raise the
priority of O?)
Since all tests pass, test sptests/spsem03 passes, which shows
that your implementation doesn't support horizontal nesting.
There is no deadlock detection.
Please have a look at:
https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2412
I think the suggested implementation would even work on SMP
systems quite well.
-- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 <tel:%2B49%2089%20189%2047%2041-16>
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 <tel:%2B49%2089%20189%2047%2041-09>
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
<mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
