Wolfgang Mauerer wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Wolfgang Mauerer wrote:
>>> (This is the Xenomai part of the mechanism, please see the ipipe
>>>  mailing list for the patches that provide the required basis 
>>>  infrastructure)
>>> This patch series extends Xenomai with a new clock, CLOCK_HOST_REALTIME.
>>> It allows for sharing NTP-corrected real time timestamps between
>>> Linux/ipipe and Xenomai. The data are also available in userspace and can
>>> be read without switching to kernel mode. Notice, however, that the new
>>> clock only enables to read to time, but cannot serve as a full time basis.
>>> Some changes to the ipipe layer are required as basis.
>>> In contrast to the initial approach, we don't use a transactional mechanism
>>> to copy the information over from Linux, but use classical synchronisation.
>>> The code can be compiled in conditionally for both, ipipe and Xenomai. When
>>> disabled by architectures that don't support apt clock sources, there is
>>> no runtime-overhead associated with the feature.
>>> Some points that may require further discussion:
>>> - POSIX only specifies a few clock_ids, and these have already been
>>>   extended by the Linux kernel. We use the maximum id (16) for the new
>>>   clock, but it might also make sense to use 7 (CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE+1)
>>> - The current implementation deals with x86_64's TSC. Support for other
>>>   architectures can be added. Additionally, the user has to make sure that
>>>   the TSC clock source remains active once selected.  To implement 
>>>   deactivation (e.g., when the Linux clock source is changed), more 
>>>   ipipe hooks would be required, though.
>>>   There are two alternatives including other architectures:
>>>   * We can create a new clocksource that abstracts the per-architecture
>>>     differences, and use this clocksource as basis for
>>>     Xenomai. Essentially, this means mapping all desired
>>>     non-x86-Clocksources to the interface offered in this patch.
>>>     This requires more changes in the ipipe layer than variant B, namely,
>>>   * We can create a union in struct xnvdso of all arch-specific clock
>>>     datasets and introduce feature flags like XNVDSO_FEAT_HOSTRT_X86,
>>>     XNVDSO_FEAT_HOSTRT_WHATEVER. The reader-side code then needs to
>>>     match the data provided, which requires more changes on the
>>>     Xenomai side.
>> The dataset is the same on all architectures, since we provide the same
>> "clocksource abstraction" on the 5 architectures we support: a TSC
>> emulation. So, a simple approach is simply cut-and-paste the x86
>> update_vsyscall code for other architectures, another approach is to put
>> this code in a wrapper which we call on all architectures.
> this disables the possibility of using non-TSC time sources that
> can also be accessed from userland. That's certainly not a requirement
> for us, I'd just like to mention it.

This would only make sense on x86, as other architectures seem to have
only one clock-source. And since other clocksources than TSC have a
higher overhead, I do not think it is likely that we would like to use
them. Anyway, we can start with TSC and if the need arises, fix that later.

> We also need to ensure that the host has not switched away from TSC
> because in this case, the NTP correction values delivered from Linux
> are for a different clocksource than the one used by Xenomai.
> So we need to detect a switch from TSC to non-TSC, which can only be
> done in arch-specific code -- I don't see a generic way to know which
> clocksources are based on the TSC and which one are not.

Well, all architectures call ipipe_request_tickdev, so, we can check if
the clock pointer passed to update_vsyscall is the same as the one
returned by ipipe_request_tickdev. Do not know if this is really
possible, I would need to check more closely how ipipe_request_tickdev

>> This update_vsyscall code would call ipipe_dispatch_event to pass the
>> data to Xenomai.
> okay. That seems to have dropped from my radar, as I don't recall having
> any issues with this requirement.

I am sure that I always thought that it should be done this way. But
maybe I did not say it... Sorry if that is the case.


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to