Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>> Author: gch
>>>>>>> Date: Sat Oct  4 23:11:09 2008
>>>>>>> New Revision: 4210
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/xenomai?rev=4210&view=rev
>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>> Call __real_pthread_setschedparam in order to inform the libc of the 
>>>>>>> scheduling parameters change.
>>>>>> Well, I dropped this idea after realizing that it will kick us out of
>>>>>> primary mode in all cases. This change is an improvement (/wrt Linux
>>>>>> scheduling accuracy) for borderline threads, but it will cause
>>>>>> regressions for primary-only threads. I have no idea right now how to
>>>>>> make both happy, at least without explicit pthread_setschedparam
>>>>>> invocations by the user application.
>>>>> Well, we discussed this on the xenomai mailing list, you did not answer,
>>>>> so we assumed you agreed.
>>>> I do not find any hint in that thread that we agreed on changing the
>>>> implementation. Rather I took back my suggestion to do it like #4210.
>>>> And you proposed to install some signal for syncing glibc /wrt
>>>> priorities. When changing something, then I would say explore this path
>>>> first.
>>> We are used to hear you when you do disagree... So, since you did not
>>> answer Philippe mail who said "it is certainly debatable", we assumed
>>> you agreed. But we certainly were wrong.
> 
> I may have misunderstood that this early statement in the discussion was
> still valid after we dug deeper into the topic.
> 
>>>> Turning rt_task_set_priority into secondary-mode service is a critical
>>>> change, and only the last resort if we consider its current
>>>> implementation as totally broken - I wouldn't say it is like that. It's
>>>> partially and, unfortunately, silently broken, ie. lacking documentation
>>>> about its limitations. But its perfectly OK for primary-only users.
>>> No, an important invariant of Xenomai is that the priority scales are
>>> synchronized between Xenomai and Linux. So, if Linux does not see the
>>> same priority as Xenomai, the implementation is broken. Imagine for
>>> instance that your primary-only thread posts an NPTL semaphore, knowing
>>> that a switch will not occur so that it will not leave primary mode. If
>>> the glibc does not see the correct priority, then a mode switch may
>>> occur whereas it should not. This is a bit far-fetched, but who knows
>>> what else may happen if the priorities are not synchronized. We
>>> absolutely want the priorities to be synchronized.
> 
> I understand the deep desire to keep the priorities in sync for those
> threads that go to secondary mode (or at least accept occasional switches).
> 
> But no one will (OK: should) seriously build a primary-only design based
> on assumptions about the glibc locking and syscall behavior. Practice
> teaches that this is doomed to break - at latest on next glibc update
> (or what other standard third-party lib). Primary-only means only safe
> Xenomai services or well-audited library calls. So turning some Xenomai
> service into an unsafe one remains a critical step, even if it fixes
> other use cases.
> 
>> Ok. I am looking at the SIGWINCH change.
>>
> 
> Great, TiA.

I am not optimistic. I see no way for now to change this without
breaking the ABI.

-- 
                                            Gilles.

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

Reply via email to