[Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1024 bytes --]

Hi Philippe,

here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64
under different gcc compilers:

        unsigned long x = 0;
        int n = 32;

        x |= 1 << n;

The last instruction translates to:

	mov    0xfffffffffffffffc(%rbp),%ecx
	mov    $0x1,%eax
	shl    %cl,%eax
	cltq
	or     %rax,0xfffffffffffffff0(%rbp)

That means we only shift with 32-bit precision although the target type
is 64 bit. We find such code for setting the queue usage bits in
addmlq(), but probably elsewhere too. This variant lets gcc generate the
desired code:

	x |= (unsigned long)1 << n;

Compiler issue, x86_64-specific oddity, or generic 64-bit problem we may
have across the ipipe and Xenomai code (ppc64, ia64?)?

After patching nucleus/queue.h appropriately, my oopses disappear, but
RT threads still do not run (no CSW to the threads latency creates).

Jan


PS: If you are interested, I could post a modified qemu patch that
enables gdb kernel debugging under x86_64.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Philippe Gerum]

On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
> 
> here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64
> under different gcc compilers:
> 
>         unsigned long x = 0;
>         int n = 32;
> 
>         x |= 1 << n;
> 
> The last instruction translates to:
> 
> 	mov    0xfffffffffffffffc(%rbp),%ecx
> 	mov    $0x1,%eax
> 	shl    %cl,%eax
> 	cltq
> 	or     %rax,0xfffffffffffffff0(%rbp)
> 

Blast. Good spot.

> That means we only shift with 32-bit precision although the target type
> is 64 bit. We find such code for setting the queue usage bits in
> addmlq(), but probably elsewhere too. This variant lets gcc generate the
> desired code:
> 
> 	x |= (unsigned long)1 << n;
> 
> Compiler issue, x86_64-specific oddity, or generic 64-bit problem we may
> have across the ipipe and Xenomai code (ppc64, ia64?)?
> 

A brief look at the I-pipe code base shows that most shift expressions
have righthand sides limited to small values (at least always < 32), and
when they don't, the lefthand side is properly cast to long long values,
so this should be ok.

BUT, it's a general 64bit port issue for Xenomai, which is not specific
to the multi-level queue implementation. We have the same issue going on
with at least:

- the posix registry
- the message pipe support from the nucleus
- the vrtx id generator

Gentlemen, it's time for bug hunting.

> After patching nucleus/queue.h appropriately, my oopses disappear, but
> RT threads still do not run (no CSW to the threads latency creates).
> Jan
> 
> 
> PS: If you are interested, I could post a modified qemu patch that
> enables gdb kernel debugging under x86_64.
> 

Yes please. I would have a look to the remaining issue I have here
exclusively over qemu, which seems unrelated to the multi-level queue
issue though.

-- 
Philippe.

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

Philippe Gerum wrote:
 > - the posix registry

Is it enough to replace 1 << (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) 
with 1L << (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) ?

-- 


					    Gilles Chanteperdrix.

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 208 bytes --]

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>  > - the posix registry
> 
> Is it enough to replace 1 << (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) 
> with 1L << (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) ?
> 

Yes, of course!

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

Jan Kiszka wrote:
 > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
 > > Philippe Gerum wrote:
 > >  > - the posix registry
 > > 
 > > Is it enough to replace 1 << (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) 
 > > with 1L << (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) ?
 > > 
 > 
 > Yes, of course!

But ffs on x86_64 takes an int as argument, not a long. So, my best
option is to replace BITS_PER_LONG with 32 and work with ints instead of
longs.

-- 


					    Gilles Chanteperdrix.

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 508 bytes --]

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>  > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>  > > Philippe Gerum wrote:
>  > >  > - the posix registry
>  > > 
>  > > Is it enough to replace 1 << (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) 
>  > > with 1L << (fd % BITS_PER_LONG) ?
>  > > 
>  > 
>  > Yes, of course!
> 
> But ffs on x86_64 takes an int as argument, not a long. So, my best
> option is to replace BITS_PER_LONG with 32 and work with ints instead of
> longs.

Or we switch to __ffs, which operates on ulong.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2197 bytes --]

Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi Philippe,
>>
>> here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64
>> under different gcc compilers:
>>
>>         unsigned long x = 0;
>>         int n = 32;
>>
>>         x |= 1 << n;
>>
>> The last instruction translates to:
>>
>> 	mov    0xfffffffffffffffc(%rbp),%ecx
>> 	mov    $0x1,%eax
>> 	shl    %cl,%eax
>> 	cltq
>> 	or     %rax,0xfffffffffffffff0(%rbp)
>>
> 
> Blast. Good spot.
> 
>> That means we only shift with 32-bit precision although the target type
>> is 64 bit. We find such code for setting the queue usage bits in
>> addmlq(), but probably elsewhere too. This variant lets gcc generate the
>> desired code:
>>
>> 	x |= (unsigned long)1 << n;
>>
>> Compiler issue, x86_64-specific oddity, or generic 64-bit problem we may
>> have across the ipipe and Xenomai code (ppc64, ia64?)?
>>
> 
> A brief look at the I-pipe code base shows that most shift expressions
> have righthand sides limited to small values (at least always < 32), and
> when they don't, the lefthand side is properly cast to long long values,
> so this should be ok.
> 
> BUT, it's a general 64bit port issue for Xenomai, which is not specific
> to the multi-level queue implementation. We have the same issue going on
> with at least:
> 
> - the posix registry
> - the message pipe support from the nucleus
> - the vrtx id generator
> 
> Gentlemen, it's time for bug hunting.
> 
>> After patching nucleus/queue.h appropriately, my oopses disappear, but
>> RT threads still do not run (no CSW to the threads latency creates).
>> Jan
>>
>>
>> PS: If you are interested, I could post a modified qemu patch that
>> enables gdb kernel debugging under x86_64.
>>
> 
> Yes please. I would have a look to the remaining issue I have here
> exclusively over qemu, which seems unrelated to the multi-level queue
> issue though.
> 

Attached. A post to qemu-devel is also on the way. I wonder way the
original patch by Jason Wessel, posted last September, or a variant of
it still didn't make it into a qemu release or at least its CVS. Anyway.

Jan

[-- Attachment #1.2: x86_64-gdb.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2562 bytes --]

Index: qemu-0.9.0/gdbstub.c
===================================================================
--- qemu-0.9.0.orig/gdbstub.c
+++ qemu-0.9.0/gdbstub.c
@@ -220,9 +220,78 @@ static int put_packet(GDBState *s, char 
     }
     return 0;
 }
+#if defined(TARGET_X86_64)
+/* Defines from GDB register struct numbers */
+#define _RAX	0
+#define _RBX	1
+#define _RCX	2
+#define _RDX	3
+#define _RSI	4
+#define _RDI	5
+#define _RBP	6
+#define _RSP	7
+#define _R8	8
+#define _R15	15
+#define _PC	16
+#define _PS	17
+#define _CS	18
+#define _SS	19
+#define _DS	20
+#define _ES	21
+#define _FS	22
+#define _GS	23
+#define _NREGS	24
 
-#if defined(TARGET_I386)
+static int cpu_gdb_read_registers(CPUState *env, uint8_t *mem_buf)
+{
+    uint64_t *registers = (uint64_t *)mem_buf;
+    int i;
+
+    registers[_RAX] = env->regs[R_EAX];
+    registers[_RBX] = env->regs[R_EBX];
+    registers[_RCX] = env->regs[R_ECX];
+    registers[_RDX] = env->regs[R_EDX];
+    registers[_RSI] = env->regs[R_ESI];
+    registers[_RDI] = env->regs[R_EDI];
+    registers[_RBP] = env->regs[R_EBP];
+    registers[_RSP] = env->regs[R_ESP];
+    for (i = 8; i < 16; i++)
+        registers[i] = env->regs[i];
+    registers[_PC] = env->eip;
+    registers[_PS] = env->eflags;
+    registers[_CS] = env->segs[R_CS].selector;
+    registers[_SS] = env->segs[R_SS].selector;
+    registers[_DS] = env->segs[R_DS].selector;
+    registers[_ES] = env->segs[R_ES].selector;
+    registers[_FS] = env->segs[R_FS].selector;
+    registers[_GS] = env->segs[R_GS].selector;
+
+    for(i = 0; i < _NREGS; i++)
+        tswapl(registers[i]);
+
+    return _NREGS * 8;
+}
+
+static void cpu_gdb_write_registers(CPUState *env, uint8_t *mem_buf, int size)
+{
+    uint32_t *registers = (uint32_t *)mem_buf;
+    int i;
+
+    env->regs[R_EAX] = tswapl(registers[_RAX]);
+    env->regs[R_EBX] = tswapl(registers[_RBX]);
+    env->regs[R_ECX] = tswapl(registers[_RCX]);
+    env->regs[R_EDX] = tswapl(registers[_RDX]);
+    env->regs[R_ESI] = tswapl(registers[_RSI]);
+    env->regs[R_EDI] = tswapl(registers[_RDI]);
+    env->regs[R_EBP] = tswapl(registers[_RBP]);
+    env->regs[R_ESP] = tswapl(registers[_RSP]);
+    for (i = 8; i < 16; i++)
+        env->regs[i] = tswapl(registers[i]);
+    env->eip = tswapl(registers[_PC]);
+    env->eflags = tswapl(registers[_PS]);
+}
 
+#elif defined(TARGET_I386)
 static int cpu_gdb_read_registers(CPUState *env, uint8_t *mem_buf)
 {
     uint32_t *registers = (uint32_t *)mem_buf;

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3328 bytes --]

Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Hi Philippe,
>>>
>>> here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64
>>> under different gcc compilers:
>>>
>>>         unsigned long x = 0;
>>>         int n = 32;
>>>
>>>         x |= 1 << n;
>>>
>>> The last instruction translates to:
>>>
>>> 	mov    0xfffffffffffffffc(%rbp),%ecx
>>> 	mov    $0x1,%eax
>>> 	shl    %cl,%eax
>>> 	cltq
>>> 	or     %rax,0xfffffffffffffff0(%rbp)
>>>
>> Blast. Good spot.
>>
>>> That means we only shift with 32-bit precision although the target type
>>> is 64 bit. We find such code for setting the queue usage bits in
>>> addmlq(), but probably elsewhere too. This variant lets gcc generate the
>>> desired code:
>>>
>>> 	x |= (unsigned long)1 << n;
>>>
>>> Compiler issue, x86_64-specific oddity, or generic 64-bit problem we may
>>> have across the ipipe and Xenomai code (ppc64, ia64?)?
>>>
>> A brief look at the I-pipe code base shows that most shift expressions
>> have righthand sides limited to small values (at least always < 32), and
>> when they don't, the lefthand side is properly cast to long long values,
>> so this should be ok.
>>
>> BUT, it's a general 64bit port issue for Xenomai, which is not specific
>> to the multi-level queue implementation. We have the same issue going on
>> with at least:
>>
>> - the posix registry
>> - the message pipe support from the nucleus
>> - the vrtx id generator
>>
>> Gentlemen, it's time for bug hunting.
>>
>>> After patching nucleus/queue.h appropriately, my oopses disappear, but
>>> RT threads still do not run (no CSW to the threads latency creates).
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>> PS: If you are interested, I could post a modified qemu patch that
>>> enables gdb kernel debugging under x86_64.
>>>
>> Yes please. I would have a look to the remaining issue I have here
>> exclusively over qemu, which seems unrelated to the multi-level queue
>> issue though.
>>
> 
> Attached. A post to qemu-devel is also on the way. I wonder way the
> original patch by Jason Wessel, posted last September, or a variant of
> it still didn't make it into a qemu release or at least its CVS. Anyway.
> 

A few iteration later, a new version of my qemu patch (now with more
registers...):

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/17315


BTW, with latest SVN trunk and scalable sched, the oopses are gone but
latency still doesn't start up:

root@domain.hid :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/sched 
CPU  PID    PRI      PERIOD     TIMEOUT    TIMEBASE  STAT       NAME
  0  0       -1      0          0          master    R          ROOT
  0  930      0      0          0          master    R          display-928
  0  931     99      0          0          master    R          sampling-928
root@domain.hid :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/stat  
CPU  PID    MSW        CSW        PF    STAT       %CPU  NAME
  0  0      0          0          0     00500080  100.0  ROOT
  0  930    0          0          0     00300188    0.0  display-928
  0  931    0          0          0     00300188    0.0  sampling-928
  0  0      0          207        0     00000000    0.0  IRQ296: [timer]

This doesn't happen with !CONFIG_XENO_OPT_SCALABLE_SCHED.

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Philippe Gerum]

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:35 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>> Hi Philippe,
> >>>
> >>> here is an explanation of the scalable scheduler issue I face on x86_64
> >>> under different gcc compilers:
> >>>
> >>>         unsigned long x = 0;
> >>>         int n = 32;
> >>>
> >>>         x |= 1 << n;
> >>>
> >>> The last instruction translates to:
> >>>
> >>> 	mov    0xfffffffffffffffc(%rbp),%ecx
> >>> 	mov    $0x1,%eax
> >>> 	shl    %cl,%eax
> >>> 	cltq
> >>> 	or     %rax,0xfffffffffffffff0(%rbp)
> >>>
> >> Blast. Good spot.
> >>
> >>> That means we only shift with 32-bit precision although the target type
> >>> is 64 bit. We find such code for setting the queue usage bits in
> >>> addmlq(), but probably elsewhere too. This variant lets gcc generate the
> >>> desired code:
> >>>
> >>> 	x |= (unsigned long)1 << n;
> >>>
> >>> Compiler issue, x86_64-specific oddity, or generic 64-bit problem we may
> >>> have across the ipipe and Xenomai code (ppc64, ia64?)?
> >>>
> >> A brief look at the I-pipe code base shows that most shift expressions
> >> have righthand sides limited to small values (at least always < 32), and
> >> when they don't, the lefthand side is properly cast to long long values,
> >> so this should be ok.
> >>
> >> BUT, it's a general 64bit port issue for Xenomai, which is not specific
> >> to the multi-level queue implementation. We have the same issue going on
> >> with at least:
> >>
> >> - the posix registry
> >> - the message pipe support from the nucleus
> >> - the vrtx id generator
> >>
> >> Gentlemen, it's time for bug hunting.
> >>
> >>> After patching nucleus/queue.h appropriately, my oopses disappear, but
> >>> RT threads still do not run (no CSW to the threads latency creates).
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> PS: If you are interested, I could post a modified qemu patch that
> >>> enables gdb kernel debugging under x86_64.
> >>>
> >> Yes please. I would have a look to the remaining issue I have here
> >> exclusively over qemu, which seems unrelated to the multi-level queue
> >> issue though.
> >>
> > 
> > Attached. A post to qemu-devel is also on the way. I wonder way the
> > original patch by Jason Wessel, posted last September, or a variant of
> > it still didn't make it into a qemu release or at least its CVS. Anyway.
> > 
> 
> A few iteration later, a new version of my qemu patch (now with more
> registers...):
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/17315
> 
> 
> BTW, with latest SVN trunk and scalable sched, the oopses are gone but
> latency still doesn't start up:
> 
> root@domain.hid :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/sched 
> CPU  PID    PRI      PERIOD     TIMEOUT    TIMEBASE  STAT       NAME
>   0  0       -1      0          0          master    R          ROOT
>   0  930      0      0          0          master    R          display-928
>   0  931     99      0          0          master    R          sampling-928
> root@domain.hid :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/stat  
> CPU  PID    MSW        CSW        PF    STAT       %CPU  NAME
>   0  0      0          0          0     00500080  100.0  ROOT
>   0  930    0          0          0     00300188    0.0  display-928
>   0  931    0          0          0     00300188    0.0  sampling-928

Two threads in ready state with higher priority than the root one: this
means that a rescheduling opportunity has been missed, or more
precisely, someone may be lying to xnpod_schedule() wrt to priority
ordering when the scalable sched is enabled.

>   0  0      0          207        0     00000000    0.0  IRQ296: [timer]
> 
> This doesn't happen with !CONFIG_XENO_OPT_SCALABLE_SCHED.
> 
> Jan
> 
-- 
Philippe.

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

Philippe Gerum wrote:
 > On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:35 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
 > > BTW, with latest SVN trunk and scalable sched, the oopses are gone but
 > > latency still doesn't start up:
 > > 
 > > root@domain.hid :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/sched 
 > > CPU  PID    PRI      PERIOD     TIMEOUT    TIMEBASE  STAT       NAME
 > >   0  0       -1      0          0          master    R          ROOT
 > >   0  930      0      0          0          master    R          display-928
 > >   0  931     99      0          0          master    R          sampling-928
 > > root@domain.hid :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/stat  
 > > CPU  PID    MSW        CSW        PF    STAT       %CPU  NAME
 > >   0  0      0          0          0     00500080  100.0  ROOT
 > >   0  930    0          0          0     00300188    0.0  display-928
 > >   0  931    0          0          0     00300188    0.0  sampling-928
 > 
 > Two threads in ready state with higher priority than the root one: this
 > means that a rescheduling opportunity has been missed, or more
 > precisely, someone may be lying to xnpod_schedule() wrt to priority
 > ordering when the scalable sched is enabled.

ffsmlq uses ffnz, and there are two implementations of ffnz, one in
asm/hal.h which is correct on x86_64, the other in nucleus/system.h
which uses ffs hence only operates on ints.

-- 


					    Gilles Chanteperdrix.

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
 > Philippe Gerum wrote:
 >  > On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:35 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
 >  > > BTW, with latest SVN trunk and scalable sched, the oopses are gone but
 >  > > latency still doesn't start up:
 >  > > 
 >  > > root@domain.hid :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/sched 
 >  > > CPU  PID    PRI      PERIOD     TIMEOUT    TIMEBASE  STAT       NAME
 >  > >   0  0       -1      0          0          master    R          ROOT
 >  > >   0  930      0      0          0          master    R          display-928
 >  > >   0  931     99      0          0          master    R          sampling-928
 >  > > root@domain.hid :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/stat  
 >  > > CPU  PID    MSW        CSW        PF    STAT       %CPU  NAME
 >  > >   0  0      0          0          0     00500080  100.0  ROOT
 >  > >   0  930    0          0          0     00300188    0.0  display-928
 >  > >   0  931    0          0          0     00300188    0.0  sampling-928
 >  > 
 >  > Two threads in ready state with higher priority than the root one: this
 >  > means that a rescheduling opportunity has been missed, or more
 >  > precisely, someone may be lying to xnpod_schedule() wrt to priority
 >  > ordering when the scalable sched is enabled.
 > 
 > ffsmlq uses ffnz, and there are two implementations of ffnz, one in
 > asm/hal.h which is correct on x86_64, the other in nucleus/system.h
 > which uses ffs hence only operates on ints.

Never mind, nucleus/system.h is only included when using Xenomai headers
in user-space. Nevertheless, it should probably use ffsl instead of ffs.

-- 


					    Gilles Chanteperdrix.

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1860 bytes --]

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>  > Philippe Gerum wrote:
>  >  > On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:35 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>  >  > > BTW, with latest SVN trunk and scalable sched, the oopses are gone but
>  >  > > latency still doesn't start up:
>  >  > > 
>  >  > > root@domain.hid :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/sched 
>  >  > > CPU  PID    PRI      PERIOD     TIMEOUT    TIMEBASE  STAT       NAME
>  >  > >   0  0       -1      0          0          master    R          ROOT
>  >  > >   0  930      0      0          0          master    R          display-928
>  >  > >   0  931     99      0          0          master    R          sampling-928
>  >  > > root@domain.hid :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/stat  
>  >  > > CPU  PID    MSW        CSW        PF    STAT       %CPU  NAME
>  >  > >   0  0      0          0          0     00500080  100.0  ROOT
>  >  > >   0  930    0          0          0     00300188    0.0  display-928
>  >  > >   0  931    0          0          0     00300188    0.0  sampling-928
>  >  > 
>  >  > Two threads in ready state with higher priority than the root one: this
>  >  > means that a rescheduling opportunity has been missed, or more
>  >  > precisely, someone may be lying to xnpod_schedule() wrt to priority
>  >  > ordering when the scalable sched is enabled.
>  > 
>  > ffsmlq uses ffnz, and there are two implementations of ffnz, one in
>  > asm/hal.h which is correct on x86_64, the other in nucleus/system.h
>  > which uses ffs hence only operates on ints.
> 
> Never mind, nucleus/system.h is only included when using Xenomai headers
> in user-space. Nevertheless, it should probably use ffsl instead of ffs.
> 

Who the hell is using the ffnz implementation in system.h? The
simulator? I kicked it out for a x64-build here, and I got no noticeable
effects.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Who the hell is using the ffnz implementation in system.h? The
> simulator? I kicked it out for a x64-build here, and I got no noticeable
> effects.

No, the simulator uses the one in asm-sim/system.h. The one in
nucleus/system.h is, for instance, for xnmlqueue_t in user-space.

-- 
                                                 Gilles Chanteperdrix

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 456 bytes --]

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Who the hell is using the ffnz implementation in system.h? The
>> simulator? I kicked it out for a x64-build here, and I got no noticeable
>> effects.
> 
> No, the simulator uses the one in asm-sim/system.h. The one in
> nucleus/system.h is, for instance, for xnmlqueue_t in user-space.
> 

Thus a removable UVM remainder? At least this ffs/ffsl issue doesn't
explain my scheduling problem.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] target width of shifts on 64 bits

[Philippe Gerum]

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:48 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >  > Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >  >  > On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 11:35 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >  >  > > BTW, with latest SVN trunk and scalable sched, the oopses are gone but
> >  >  > > latency still doesn't start up:
> >  >  > > 
> >  >  > > root@domain.hid :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/sched 
> >  >  > > CPU  PID    PRI      PERIOD     TIMEOUT    TIMEBASE  STAT       NAME
> >  >  > >   0  0       -1      0          0          master    R          ROOT
> >  >  > >   0  930      0      0          0          master    R          display-928
> >  >  > >   0  931     99      0          0          master    R          sampling-928
> >  >  > > root@domain.hid :/root# cat /proc/xenomai/stat  
> >  >  > > CPU  PID    MSW        CSW        PF    STAT       %CPU  NAME
> >  >  > >   0  0      0          0          0     00500080  100.0  ROOT
> >  >  > >   0  930    0          0          0     00300188    0.0  display-928
> >  >  > >   0  931    0          0          0     00300188    0.0  sampling-928
> >  >  > 
> >  >  > Two threads in ready state with higher priority than the root one: this
> >  >  > means that a rescheduling opportunity has been missed, or more
> >  >  > precisely, someone may be lying to xnpod_schedule() wrt to priority
> >  >  > ordering when the scalable sched is enabled.
> >  > 
> >  > ffsmlq uses ffnz, and there are two implementations of ffnz, one in
> >  > asm/hal.h which is correct on x86_64, the other in nucleus/system.h
> >  > which uses ffs hence only operates on ints.
> > 
> > Never mind, nucleus/system.h is only included when using Xenomai headers
> > in user-space. Nevertheless, it should probably use ffsl instead of ffs.
> > 
> 
> Who the hell is using the ffnz implementation in system.h? The
> simulator? I kicked it out for a x64-build here, and I got no noticeable
> effects.
> 

No, the simulator uses its own (bugous over 64bit) ffs-based
implementation of ffnz. What's in nucleus/system.h is likely a left over
from the removed UVM support.

-- 
Philippe.