Re: [Xenomai-core] Potential problem with rt_eepro100

[Philippe Gerum <rpm@xenomai.org>]

On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 11:14 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Am 07.11.2010 11:12, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Am 07.11.2010 11:03, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 09:31 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>>>>> Anyway, after some thoughts, I think we are going to try and make the
> >>>>>>> current situation work instead of going back to the old way.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You can find the patch which attempts to do so here:
> >>>>>>> http://sisyphus.hd.free.fr/~gilles/sched_status.txt
> >>>>>> Ack. At last, this addresses the real issues without asking for
> >>>>>> regression funkiness: fix the lack of barrier before testing XNSCHED in
> >>>>> Check the kernel, we actually need it on both sides. Wherever the final
> >>>>> barriers will be, we should leave a comment behind why they are there.
> >>>>> Could be picked up from kernel/smp.c.
> >>>> We have it on both sides: the non-local flags are modified while holding
> >>>> the nklock. Unlocking the nklock implies a barrier.
> >>> I think we may have an issue with this kind of construct:
> >>>
> >>> xnlock_get_irq*(&nklock)
> >>> 	xnpod_resume/suspend/whatever_thread()
> >>> 		xnlock_get_irq*(&nklock)
> >>> 		...
> >>> 		xnlock_put_irq*(&nklock)
> >>> 	xnpod_schedule()
> >>> 		xnlock_get_irq*(&nklock)
> >>> 			send_ipi
> >>> 			=====> xnpod_schedule_handler on dest CPU
> >>> 		xnlock_put_irq*(&nklock)
> >>> xnlock_put_irq*(&nklock)
> >>>
> >>> The issue would be triggered by the use of recursive locking. In that
> >>> case, the source CPU would only sync its cache when the lock is actually
> >>> dropped by the outer xnlock_put_irq* call and the inner
> >>> xnlock_get/put_irq* would not act as barriers, so the remote
> >>> rescheduling handler won't always see the XNSCHED update done remotely,
> >>> and may lead to a no-op. So we need a barrier before sending the IPI in
> >>> __xnpod_test_resched().
> >>
> >> That's what I said.
> >>
> >> And we need it on the reader side as an rmb().
> > 
> > This one we have, in xnpod_schedule_handler.
> > 
> 
> Right, with your patch (the above sounded like we only need it on writer
> side).

C'mon...

-- 
Philippe.