On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 13/06/13 18:06, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Sebastian Huber
>>> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add and use _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_first_order(),
>>>> _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_last_order(),
>>>> _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_first() and
>>>> _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_last().
>>>> ---
>>>> .../score/inline/rtems/score/schedulersimple.inl | 46
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> .../score/src/schedulersimplereadyqueueenqueue.c | 21 +--------
>>>> .../src/schedulersimplereadyqueueenqueuefirst.c | 26 +----------
>>>> 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/cpukit/score/inline/rtems/score/schedulersimple.inl
>>>> b/cpukit/score/inline/rtems/score/schedulersimple.inl
>>>> index e67fc3c..1b58c85 100644
>>>> --- a/cpukit/score/inline/rtems/score/schedulersimple.inl
>>>> +++ b/cpukit/score/inline/rtems/score/schedulersimple.inl
>>>> @@ -48,6 +48,52 @@ RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE void
>>>> _Scheduler_simple_Ready_queue_requeue(
>>>> _Scheduler_simple_Ready_queue_enqueue( the_thread );
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE bool _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_first_order(
>>>> + const Chain_Node *to_insert,
>>>> + const Chain_Node *next
>>>> +)
>>>> +{
>>>> + const Thread_Control *thread_to_insert = (const Thread_Control *)
>>>> to_insert;
>>>> + const Thread_Control *thread_next = (const Thread_Control *) next;
>>>> +
>>>> + return thread_to_insert->current_priority <=
>>>> thread_next->current_priority;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE bool _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_last_order(
>>>> + const Chain_Node *to_insert,
>>>> + const Chain_Node *next
>>>> +)
>>>> +{
>>>> + const Thread_Control *thread_to_insert = (const Thread_Control *)
>>>> to_insert;
>>>> + const Thread_Control *thread_next = (const Thread_Control *) next;
>>>> +
>>>> + return thread_to_insert->current_priority <
>>>> thread_next->current_priority;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE void _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_first(
>>>> + Chain_Control *chain,
>>>> + Thread_Control *to_insert
>>>> +)
>>>> +{
>>>> + _Chain_Insert_ordered_unprotected(
>>>> + chain,
>>>> + &to_insert->Object.Node,
>>>> + _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_first_order
>>>> + );
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE void _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_last(
>>>> + Chain_Control *chain,
>>>> + Thread_Control *to_insert
>>>> +)
>>>> +{
>>>> + _Chain_Insert_ordered_unprotected(
>>>> + chain,
>>>> + &to_insert->Object.Node,
>>>> + _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_last_order
>>>> + );
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> For these functions _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_first() and
>>> _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_last() the name means they break priority
>>> ties by FIFO and LIFO semantics? Before I read the code, I thought it
>>> meant break ties by inserting to the first or last position of ties,
>>> which is the opposite. I would prefer to have
>>> _Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_fifo()/lifo() instead for added clarity.
>>>
>> I guess saying fifo/lifo could be confusing also, since the insert is
>> not fifo/lifo, just how priority ties are broken. So maybe
>> _Scheduler_simple_Insert_priority_fifo()/lifo()?
>
>
> Suppose we have 0 < 5_0 <= 5_1 < 10, then insert 5_2 as first will yield
>
> 0 < 5_2 <= 5_0 <= 5_1 < 10
>
> and insert 5_2 as last will yield
>
> 0 < 5_0 <= 5_1 <= 5_2 < 10
>
> I will use your suggestions.
>
OK. So "insert as first" implements a LIFO tie-break, and "insert as
last" implements FIFO
> --
> 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.
>
_______________________________________________
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel@rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
