Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Am 03.11.2010 23:11, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Am 03.11.2010 23:03, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> But we not not always use atomic ops for manipulating status bits (but
>>> we do in other cases where this is no need - different story). This may
>>> fix the race:
>> Err, nonsense. As we manipulate xnsched::status also outside of nklock
>> protection, we must _always_ use atomic ops.
>>
>> This screams for a cleanup: local-only bits like XNHTICK or XNINIRQ
>> should be pushed in a separate status word that can then be safely
>> modified non-atomically.
>
> Second try to fix and clean up the sched status bits. Anders, please
> test.
>
> Jan
>
> diff --git a/include/nucleus/pod.h b/include/nucleus/pod.h
> index 01ff0a7..5987a1f 100644
> --- a/include/nucleus/pod.h
> +++ b/include/nucleus/pod.h
> @@ -277,12 +277,10 @@ static inline void xnpod_schedule(void)
> * context is active, or if we are caught in the middle of a
> * unlocked context switch.
> */
> -#if XENO_DEBUG(NUCLEUS)
> if (testbits(sched->status, XNKCOUT|XNINIRQ|XNSWLOCK))
> return;
> -#else /* !XENO_DEBUG(NUCLEUS) */
> - if (testbits(sched->status,
> - XNKCOUT|XNINIRQ|XNSWLOCK|XNRESCHED) != XNRESCHED)
> +#if !XENO_DEBUG(NUCLEUS)
> + if (!sched->resched)
> return;
> #endif /* !XENO_DEBUG(NUCLEUS) */
Having only one test was really nice here, maybe we simply read a
barrier before reading the status?
--
Gilles.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
