On 13/06/13 20:21, Sebastian Huber 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.
Now I think that the LIFO/FIFO talks to much about a particular use
case. What about
_Scheduler_simple_Insert_as_first_of_priority_group()
?
--
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
