* [Xenomai-core] Re: xnpod_suspend_thread and past absolute timeouts
2007-02-09 21:44 [Xenomai-core] xnpod_suspend_thread and past absolute timeouts Jan Kiszka
@ 2007-02-09 22:55 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-02-09 23:49 ` Philippe Gerum
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Gerum @ 2007-02-09 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka; +Cc: xenomai-core
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 22:44 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> RTnet revealed a problem of rtdm_task_sleep_until in trunk. When being
> called with a past date, it blocks forever because xnpod_suspend_thread
> considers such timeouts as infinite:
>
> http://www.rts.uni-hannover.de/xenomai/lxr/source/ksrc/nucleus/pod.c?v=SVN-trunk#1456
>
> Are there users relying on this property of xnpod_suspend_thread? If
> yes, I would unfortunately have to catch this case in RTDM.
It's recent since this can only happen with absolute timeouts, and I
merged this feature at the beginning of the 2.4 cycle, so nobody should
be relying on this yet. We are in the grey area here, what POSIX would
call "unspecified behaviour"; choosing one option (error and unblock) or
another (infinite wait) is still possible, but once we do it, it has to
be written in stone and documented as such.
Infinite wait is obviously trivial to implement (guess why I choose it),
but unblocking is logically better since there is no way to guarantee
that a test in the caller would still apply in the callee's context,
especially when using the master time base, for which stopping the
interrupt flow won't stop the monotonic time. Ok, ok, will fight against
procrastination and change this.
>
> Jan
>
--
Philippe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Xenomai-core] Re: xnpod_suspend_thread and past absolute timeouts
2007-02-09 21:44 [Xenomai-core] xnpod_suspend_thread and past absolute timeouts Jan Kiszka
2007-02-09 22:55 ` [Xenomai-core] " Philippe Gerum
@ 2007-02-09 23:49 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-02-10 0:07 ` Jan Kiszka
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Gerum @ 2007-02-09 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka; +Cc: xenomai-core
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 22:44 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> RTnet revealed a problem of rtdm_task_sleep_until in trunk. When being
> called with a past date, it blocks forever because xnpod_suspend_thread
> considers such timeouts as infinite:
>
> http://www.rts.uni-hannover.de/xenomai/lxr/source/ksrc/nucleus/pod.c?v=SVN-trunk#1456
>
> Are there users relying on this property of xnpod_suspend_thread? If
> yes, I would unfortunately have to catch this case in RTDM.
>
Here is the proposed change, absolutely untested; could you give this
hell on your favourite RTNet torture? TIA,
--- ksrc/nucleus/pod.c (revision 2159)
+++ ksrc/nucleus/pod.c (working copy)
@@ -1410,13 +1410,6 @@
if (thread == sched->runthread)
xnsched_set_resched(sched);
- /* We must make sure that we don't clear the wait channel if a
- thread is first blocked (wchan != NULL) then forcibly suspended
- (wchan == NULL), since these are conjunctive conditions. */
-
- if (wchan)
- thread->wchan = wchan;
-
/* Is the thread ready to run? */
if (!xnthread_test_state(thread, XNTHREAD_BLOCK_BITS)) {
@@ -1429,35 +1422,41 @@
if (xnthread_test_info(thread, XNKICKED)) {
xnthread_clear_info(thread, XNRMID | XNTIMEO);
xnthread_set_info(thread, XNBREAK);
- if (wchan)
- thread->wchan = NULL;
goto unlock_and_exit;
}
#endif /* __KERNEL__ && CONFIG_XENO_OPT_PERVASIVE */
- /* A newly created thread is not linked to the ready thread
- queue yet. */
-
- if (xnthread_test_state(thread, XNREADY)) {
- sched_removepq(&sched->readyq, &thread->rlink);
- xnthread_clear_state(thread, XNREADY);
- }
-
xnthread_clear_info(thread, XNRMID | XNTIMEO | XNBREAK | XNWAKEN | XNROBBED);
}
- xnthread_set_state(thread, mask);
+ /* Don't start the timer for a thread indefinitely delayed by
+ a call to xnpod_suspend_thread(thread,XNDELAY,XN_INFINITE,XN_RELATIVE,NULL). */
if (timeout != XN_INFINITE || mode == XN_ABSOLUTE) {
- /* Don't start the timer for a thread indefinitely delayed by
- a call to xnpod_suspend_thread(thread,XNDELAY,XN_INFINITE,XN_RELATIVE,NULL). */
- xnthread_set_state(thread, XNDELAY);
xntimer_set_sched(&thread->rtimer, thread->sched);
- /* In case of preposterous absolute timer setting, the
- * thread is never going to wake up; assume that's
- * intended. */
- xntimer_start(&thread->rtimer, timeout, XN_INFINITE, mode);
+ if (xntimer_start(&thread->rtimer, timeout, XN_INFINITE, mode)) {
+ /* (absolute) timeout value in the past, bail out. */
+ xnthread_set_info(thread, XNTIMEO);
+ goto unlock_and_exit;
+ }
+ xnthread_set_state(thread, XNDELAY);
}
+
+ if (xnthread_test_state(thread, XNREADY)) {
+ sched_removepq(&sched->readyq, &thread->rlink);
+ xnthread_clear_state(thread, XNREADY);
+ }
+
+ xnthread_set_state(thread, mask);
+
+ /* We must make sure that we don't clear the wait channel if a
+ thread is first blocked (wchan != NULL) then forcibly
+ suspended (wchan == NULL), since these are conjunctive
+ conditions. */
+
+ if (wchan)
+ thread->wchan = wchan;
+
#ifdef __XENO_SIM__
if (nkpod->schedhook)
nkpod->schedhook(thread, mask);
--
Philippe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread