Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>  > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>  > > Philippe Gerum wrote:
>  > >  > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>  > >  > > The two syscalls defined in the posix skin now moved to the sys 
> skin, they are
>  > >  > > used in user-space by include/asm-generic/bits/bind.h and the new 
> header
>  > >  > > include/asm-generic/bits/current.h. The global and process-specific 
> shared heaps
>  > >  > > are now part of this patch.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > Is there any reason why the nucleus should not implement a 
> full-fledged "RT
>  > >  > futex" support, instead of a toolbox to build them? I'm concerned by 
> skins
>  > >  > reinventing their own wheel uselessly to get to the same point at the 
> end of the
>  > >  > day; e.g. cb_lock ops seem to me fairly generic when it comes to 
> handling
>  > >  > futexes, so I would move them upstream one level more.
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > In that respect, talking about "semaphore heaps" at nucleus level 
> looks a bit of
>  > >  > a misnomer: if we mostly bring a service to map non-cacheable memory 
> to
>  > >  > user-space, then we don't actually provide semaphore support.
>  > > 
>  > > If I understand correctly, a futex is, in xenomai terms, a way to
>  > > associate a user-space address, with an xnsynch object.
>  > 
>  > I would specialize it more actually so that it really resembles the vanilla
>  > futex support, i.e. a basic object implementing the required operations to
>  > provide mutually exclusive access, working on a pinned memory area shared
>  > between kernel and userland. AFAICS, the current patchset implements the 
> pinned
>  > memory support in the nucleus, but not the operations, which remain a 
> per-skin
>  > issue.
> 
> As far as I understood, the user-space atomic operations, used to
> acquire a free mutex in user-space, are not part of the futex API. In
> our case, we are using xnarch_atomic_* operations to implement portably
> this user-space locking stuff. I think that even setting the bit saying
> that the mutex is currently owned is done in pthread_mutexes
> implementation, not in the Futex API.

I would fully agree if the futex API did not define PI-based ops, which are
needed for proper real-time operations from userland. You will certainly agree
that PI implies that some kind of ownership exists; and because there can't be
more than a single owner in that case, you end up with an object that can't be
held by more than a single task. So you do have a mutex in disguise, whatever
the way to keep its state is (a bit, an integer, whatever). So there is stronger
semantics attached to that API than to simply manage an event notification 
scheme.

 Now, what remains is
> sys_futex(FUTEX_WAIT) and sys_futex(FUTEX_WAKE), this terribly looks like
> xnsync_sleep_on and xnsynch_wakeup_one_sleeper.
> 

Yes, here again I partially agree, except for a significant issue: xnsynch is a
stateless object (that's why we can use it for different syncobjs which are
totally unrelated in their semantics - mutex, queue, region, counting sems,
whatever). I was just wondering if we could make the *tex thingy a bit more
stateful to ease the job for the skins, just in case we would use it for mutexes
only. I have no immediate answer to this question, just asking -- this is my
contribution as a senior member of the peanut gallery.

>  > 
>  >  I feel this
>  > > would complicate things: currently, the way I implemented user-space
>  > > mutexes for the posix skin kept the old association between the
>  > > user-space mutex, and its kernel-space companion, also used by
>  > > kernel-space operations.
>  > > 
>  > 
>  > My concern boils down to: how much of the POSIX implementation, beyond the
>  > cb_lock stuff, would have to be duplicated to get the same support ported 
> to,
>  > say the VxWorks semM services?
> 
> The initialization code, and the additional calls to
> xnarch_atomic_cmpxchg in user-space. If xnarch_atomic_cmpxchg fails we
> call kernel-space, which is mostly unchanged.
> 
> Because of the cb_lock stuff, I also needed to implement the
> kernel-space syscalls in two versions: one if user-space has
> xnarch_atomic_cmpxchg and could lock the mutex control block, the other
> if the mutex control block needs to be locked by kernel-space.
> 

This is the part my laziness would very much like to factor as much as possible.
If ever possible.

-- 
Philippe.

_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to