Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>> xenomai-git-requ...@gna.org wrote:
>>>>>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bits/current.h 
>>>>>> b/include/asm-generic/bits/current.h
>>>>>> index f0e569c..b9ac680 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/asm-generic/bits/current.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/bits/current.h
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -33,25 +33,16 @@ static inline xnhandle_t xeno_get_current(void)
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>          void *val = pthread_getspecific(xeno_current_key);
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> -        if (!val)
>>>>>> -                return XN_NO_HANDLE;
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -        return (xnhandle_t)val;
>>>>>> +        return (xnhandle_t)val ?: xeno_slow_get_current();
>>>>>>  }
>>>>> So when used with normal Linux threads, this will always trigger the
>>>>> syscall of xeno_slow_get_current()?
>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/src/rtdk/assert_context.c b/src/rtdk/assert_context.c
>>>>>> index bad19f3..f67bcd8 100644
>>>>>> --- a/src/rtdk/assert_context.c
>>>>>> +++ b/src/rtdk/assert_context.c
>>>>>> @@ -30,12 +30,9 @@ void assert_nrt(void)
>>>>>>          xnthread_info_t info;
>>>>>>          int err;
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> -        if (xeno_get_current() != XN_NO_HANDLE)
>>>>>> -                return;
>>>>>> +        if (unlikely(xeno_get_current() != XN_NO_HANDLE &&
>>>>>> +                     !(xeno_get_current_mode() & XNRELAX))) {
>>>>> Then please provide a different API for assert_nrt as this makes the
>>>>> service too heavy for common use.
>>>> It is a non real-time thread. Its performances are not critical. A
>>>> non-blocking syscall is not that heavy. Especially compared to the
>>>> execution time of malloc. Ok, will not argue on this any more, as
>>>> obviously our opinions differ in that area.
>>> Sorry, disagree. We are using it in mixed applications where both RT
>>> latency as well as non-RT throughput matters. The assert_nrt fast was
>>> designed to remain lightweight for both non-Xenomai threads as well as
>>> migrated threads.
>>>
>>>> The point is that NULL (XN_NO_HANDLE) means at the same time a freed
>>>> mode and a mode after the TSD cleanup was run. So, emitting a syscall in
>>>> that case is the simplest thing we can do. And no, I did not find it
>>>> expensive. But in fact, using an additional syscall, assert_nrt could be
>>>> implemented as a simple dummy syscall which returns 0 and asks the
>>>> caller to be put in primary mode (and it would be even lighter). So, I
>>>> guess if you did not implemented that way, it means that you already
>>>> wanted to avoid the syscall.
>>> Can't follow on this yet.
>> ...specifically as an unset current key is a bug for a Xenomai thread.
>> Every skin library is supposed to set it, so there should be no need for
>> falling back to a syscall for them, and there is no point in trying it
>> for non-Xenomai threads.
>>
>> So why this fallback? Does it simplify something else that I miss ATM?
> 
> So, to summarize, the problem here, is that current == XN_NO_HANDLE may
> mean that the current thread is not a real-time thread, or that it is a
> real-time thread, but that we are in the TSD cleanup, and the current
> TSD was set to 0, as is done for TSD which have no destructor.
> 
> We need get_current() to be correct, for the implementation of mutexes,
> and in that case we want the additional syscall.

Right, at least for !HAVE___THREAD. For HAVE___THREAD, I don't see a
need for a syscall. Do you?

> We need get_current()
> to be correct for clock_gettime(), because as I understand, calling
> linux' vdso clock_gettime may deadlock if we are not in secondary mode,
> I do not know if you think that using a syscall for clock_gettime over
> plain linux threads matters in that case.
> 
> For the wrapping of malloc and free, I would say we do not really care
> to absolutely get the real current. I do not think that a syscall for
> each call to malloc and free is that prohibitive, their execution time
> may already been long anyway, and the current implementation is correct.
> It is only sub-optimal for your very peculiar case, so, I will let you
> sweat on this issue.

I will post a patch to add a "less-accurate" check for an
assert_nrt_fast variant. As this only reduces accuracy for TSD
destructor contexts, and that only under !HAVE___THREAD, I don't think
it justifies the additional syscall for the majority of use cases of
assert_nrt. But let's make the user choose the accuracy (s)he
explicitly: assert_nrt for always correct results, assert_nrt_fast for
syscall-less checks with known (and to-be-documented) limitations.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

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

Reply via email to