Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> @@ -329,6 +326,13 @@ int pse51_mutex_timedlock_break(struct _
>> break;
>> }
>> }
>> + if (!xnsynch_nsleepers(&mutex->synchbase)) {
>> + xnarch_atomic_set
>> + (mutex->owner,
>> + clear_claimed
>> + (xnarch_atomic_get(mutex->owner)));
>> + xnsynch_set_owner(&mutex->synchbase, NULL);
>> + }
>> xnlock_put_irqrestore(&nklock, s);
>
> I do not like this at all. I mean, unless I am mistaken, we loose more
> than we gain, we are adding a couple of atomic, hence heavy, operations
> in a common case for handling a corner case. I still prefer emitting a
> system call in the corner case.The hunk above is in the mutex' deadlock path - I wouldn't call this a common case. Moreover, we don't any expensive cmpxchg here. I haven't counted ops, but my strong feeling is that this patch actually shortens the common code paths + it safely avoids one syscall in the lock stealing case. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
