From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>
To: rpm@xenomai.org
Cc: "Markus Osterried (BA/EDD)" <markus.osterried@domain.hid>,
xenomai@xenomai.org
Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] RTDM timeout value
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:28:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46D59084.20205@domain.hid> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1188400027.6009.147.camel@domain.hid>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2035 bytes --]
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 16:32 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Markus Osterried (BA/EDD) wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> it seems that in the RTDM API, all the timeout functions which use
>>> nanosecs_rel_t have a strange behaviour.
>>> The timeout in nanoseconds is converted to ticks and the number of ticks
>>> is rounded down. So when we want to wait e.g. 500000 nanoseconds and the
>>> timertick is 1 ms, xnpod_ns2ticks() rounds down to 0. But 0 is the
>>> special value RTDM_TIMEOUT_INFINITE, so we wait forever. I use Xenomai
>>> 2.3.1, but I think it's basically the same in trunk.
>> It should even impact other skins as well when in tick-based timing
>> mode. I would bet more users of xnpod_ns2ticks() may have overseen this
>> rounding issue - like RTDM did.
>>
>
> Other skins may only mean POSIX and native, since the other ones only
> deal with ticks.
Ah, yeah, of course.
POSIX is safe because it does well-defined rounding on its own. Native
itself has no problem, just the user may get informed about the rounding
behaviour of rt_timer_ns2ticks. Otherwise, things like rt_sem_p(sem,
rt_timer_ns2ticks(some_nanos)) may unexpectedly behave like RTDM does now.
>
>>> Wouldn't it be better to round up the ticks instead of round it down?
>> Hmm, probably. Mind to work out a patch for xnpod_ticks2ns()?
>>
>> What do others think about this issue? Can/should we change the rounding
>> behaviour at nucleus level?
>>
>
> Clearly not. You don't change the core rounding policy for fixing
> shortcomings in the higher levels, especially to fix invalid application
> requests. I do want to be able to round down at nucleus level, which I
> would not be able to do anymore with a rounding up policy at core level.
> This change belongs to the skin which wants this behaviour.
Agreed, we primarily need to fix RTDM here.
But what about introducing generic xnpod/xntbase_ns2ticks_floor/ceil()
for this? Would avoid more re-inventions of this common service.
Jan
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-29 15:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-29 14:19 [Xenomai-core] RTDM timeout value Markus Osterried (BA/EDD)
2007-08-29 14:32 ` Jan Kiszka
2007-08-29 15:07 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-08-29 15:16 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2007-08-29 15:28 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2007-08-30 6:34 ` Philippe Gerum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=46D59084.20205@domain.hid \
--to=jan.kiszka@domain.hid \
--cc=markus.osterried@domain.hid \
--cc=rpm@xenomai.org \
--cc=xenomai@xenomai.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.