Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> here come the pull request for user-space signals support. The simple >>>> solution; handling signals upon system call return, has been implemented >>>> since the other solution (handling signals upon any return to >>>> user-space) required to change the I-pipe patch, and so made the >>>> upcoming 2.5 only compatible with newer patches. >>>> >>>> We pass to kernel-space a sixth argument which is a pointer where >>>> information about received signals is stored by kernel. >>>> >>>> The only architecture for which the implementation is peculiar is >>>> x86_32, because the register used as sixth argument is ebp, also used >>>> for the libc backtrace function implementation, so I tried to find a >>>> solution which makes backtracing still possible (otherwise we would have >>>> said bye-bye to involuntary mode changes chasing with SIGXCPU) without >>>> breaking too many things. >>> I'm still digging through the code. A few minor remarks regarding the >>> user space side so far: >>> >>> XENOMAI_DO_SYSCALL becomes quite "bloated" now, and it's inlined. Did >>> you check that the fast path (ie. no signal) only contains one >>> conditional branch when the compiler is done with optimizing? If not (I >>> suspect so), the code should be refactored to look more like >>> >>> restart: >>> do_syscall >>> if unlikely(sigs.nsigs) >>> res = handle_signals >>> if res == -ERESTART >>> goto restart >>> >>> Moreover, the inner while loop over sigs.remaining should be moved into >>> a shared function as well. I don't see why it should be instantiated at >>> each and every syscall invocation site. > > Ok. The second syscall is now done in the out-of-line signal handling > function. Do you prefer this?
The smaller the inlined code gets, the better. > > It is only implemented for x86_32 since it is the problematic > architecture, but if you are ok with it, I will change the other > architectures. Will check, thanks. > >>> Am I right, there is no skin (except the test skin) using this feature >>> so far? >> Next question: The signal delivery latency is naturally affected by the >> syscall invocation frequency of the target thread, right? Ie. no >> syscall, no signal. Once we offer "RT" signals via the skin, this >> limitation should be prominently documented. > > Well, if you make no syscall, your box is basically a brick. We need > suspensions from time to time to get Linux running anyway. > For sure. My point is that people may get the idea to build time-critical event delivery based on signals. In such cases it would make a big difference how often the destination thread issues a syscall. Also forced preemptions can extend the delivery latency, only the user space workload counts. I would not recommend such application designs, but people may get that idea when they once read "RT-safe signals". :) Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaiemail@example.com https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core