On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 18:38 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 05/31/2011 06:29 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 13:37 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Hi Philippe,
> >> enabling XENO_OPT_DEBUG_NUCLEUS reveals some shortcomings of the
> >> in-kernel lock usage tracking via xnthread_t::hrescnt. This BUGON in
> >> xnsynch_release triggers for RT threads:
> >> XENO_BUGON(NUCLEUS, xnthread_get_rescnt(lastowner) < 0);
> >> RT threads do not balance their lock and unlock syscalls, so their
> >> counter goes wild quite quickly.
> >> But just limiting the bug check to XNOTHER threads is neither a
> >> solution. How to deal with the counter on scheduling policy changes?
> >> So my suggestion is to convert the auto-relax feature into a service,
> >> user space can request based on a counter that user space maintains
> >> independently. I.e. we should create another shared word that user space
> >> increments and decrements on lock acquisitions/releases on its own. The
> >> nucleus just tests it when deciding about the relax on return to user
> >> space.
> >> But before hacking into that direction, I'd like to hear if it makes
> >> sense to you.
> > At first glance, this does not seem to address the root issue. The
> > bottom line is that we should not have any thread release an owned lock
> > it does not hold, kthread or not.
> > In that respect, xnsynch_release() looks fishy because it may be called
> > over a context which is _not_ the lock owner, but the thread who is
> > deleting the lock owner, so assuming lastowner == current_thread when
> > releasing is wrong.
> > At the very least, the following patch would prevent
> > xnsynch_release_all_ownerships() to break badly. The same way, the
> > fastlock stuff does not track the owner properly in the synchro object.
> > We should fix those issues before going further, they may be related to
> > the bug described.
> It looks to me like xnsynch_fast_release uses cmpxchg, so, will not set
> the owner to NULL if the current owner is not the thread releasing the
> mutex. Is it not sufficient?
Yes, we need to move that swap to the irq off section to clear the owner
there as well.
Xenomai-core mailing list