Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I happened to stumble over this comment[1]. It made me curious,
>> especially as it is not totally correct (the loop is executed in IRQ-off
>> context, thus it *is* timecritical).
>>
> 
> Critical should be understood here in the sense that IRQs are off while
> the loop workload is high, which is fortunately not the case. Hence the
> comment.

Sure, there is not much to do inside the loop. But it does not scale
very well in case a significant number of elements are registered - and
they are scattered over a larger memory area so that cache missed strike us.

It's a bit theoretical, but I also think we can easily resolve it by
using Linux locks as soon as we can sanely sleep inside
xnheap_init/destroy_shared and xnheap_ioctl.

> 
>> While thinking about the possibility to convert the hard IRQ lock
>> protection of kheapq into some Linux mutex or whatever, I analysed the
>> contexts the users of this queue (__validate_heap_addr/xnheap_ioctl,
>> xnheap_init_shared, xnheap_destroy_shared) execute in. Basically, it is
>> Linux/secondary mode, but there are unfortunate exceptions:
>>
>> rt_heap_delete(): take nklock[2], then call xnheap_destroy_shared()[3].
>> The latter will call __unreserve_and_free_heap()[4] which calls Linux
>> functions like vfree()[5] or kfree()[6] -- I would say: not good! At
>> least on SMP we could easily get trapped by non-deterministic waiting on
>> Linux spinlocks inside those functions.
>>
>> The same applies to rt_queue_delete()[7].
>>
> 
> Good spot. Better not calling the heap deletion routines under nklock
> protection in the first place. The committed fix does just that for both
> rt_heap_delete and rt_queue_delete.

Ok, we no longer have IRQs locked over vfree/kfree, but task scheduling
is still suffering from potential delays. Wouldn't it be better to defer
such operations to an asynchronous Linux call?

Jan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to