From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <48B56876.3090601@domain.hid>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:45:10 +0200
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <48B5592B.1090005@domain.hid> <48B55F7C.5030901@domain.hid>
	<48B56685.4060500@domain.hid>
In-Reply-To: <48B56685.4060500@domain.hid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC][PATCH 2/3] Switch to handle-based fast
	mutex owners
List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches,
	discussions\)" <xenomai.xenomai.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core>,
	<mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
List-Archive: </public/xenomai-core>
List-Post: <mailto:xenomai@xenomai.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
List-Subscribe: <https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core>,
	<mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
To: gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org
Cc: xenomai-core <xenomai@xenomai.org>

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 
>> -#define test_claimed(owner) ((long) (owner) & 1)
>> -#define clear_claimed(owner) ((xnthread_t *) ((long) (owner) & ~1))
>> -#define set_claimed(owner, bit) \
>> -        ((xnthread_t *) ((long) clear_claimed(owner) | !!(bit)))
>> +#define __CLAIMED_BIT		XN_HANDLE_SPARE3
>> +
>> +#define test_claimed(owner)	xnhandle_test_spare(owner, __CLAIMED_BIT)
>> +#define clear_claimed(owner)	xnhandle_mask_spare(owner)
>> +#define set_claimed(owner, bit) ({ \
>> +	xnhandle_t __tmp = xnhandle_mask_spare(owner); \
>> +	if (bit) \
>> +		xnhandle_set_spare(__tmp, __CLAIMED_BIT); \
>> +	__tmp; \
>> +})
> 
> I liked doing this with no conditional.

You mean let the caller pass 'bit' as 0 or __CLAIMED_BIT (the latter
would require some renaming then, I guess)?

> 
>> +	xnarch_atomic_set(mutex->owner,
>> +		 	  set_claimed(xnthread_handle(owner),
>> +				      xnsynch_nsleepers(&mutex->synchbase)));
> 
> Ok. I think you have spotted a bug here. This should be mutex->sleepers
> instead of xnsynch_nsleepers.

OK. Will you fix? I will rebase then.

> 
>> +	/* Consistency check for owner handle - is the object a thread? */
>> +	if (unlikely(xnthread_handle(owner) != clear_claimed(ownerh))) {
>> +		err = -EINVAL;
>> +		goto error;
>>  	}
> 
> What is this ?

This ensures that we are not dereferences some arbitrary registry object
due to a borken handle in the mutex variable: The the object registered
on this handle is an xnthread, we will find the very same handle value
at the well-known place in the object. Kind of magic for xnthread
objects (instead of adding a magic field to them).

> 
> 
>> Index: b/ksrc/skins/posix/thread.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- a/ksrc/skins/posix/thread.c
>> +++ b/ksrc/skins/posix/thread.c
>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>>   * 
>>   *@{*/
>>  
>> +#include <nucleus/registry.h>
>>  #include <posix/thread.h>
>>  #include <posix/cancel.h>
>>  #include <posix/timer.h>
>> @@ -229,6 +230,13 @@ int pthread_create(pthread_t *tid,
>>  	appendq(thread->container, &thread->link);
>>  	xnlock_put_irqrestore(&nklock, s);
>>  
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_XENO_OPT_REGISTRY
>> +	/* We need an anonymous registry entry to obtain a handle for fast
>> +	   mutex locking. */
>> +	xnregistry_enter("", &thread->threadbase,
>> +			 &xnthread_handle(&thread->threadbase), NULL);
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_XENO_OPT_REGISTRY */
>> +
> 
> Since we need this for all threads (I want a thread from any skin to be
> able to use the posix skin mutexes), why doing it in the skin ?

Some skins register their threads unconditionally, some based on names,
some not at all. The "not at all" case has to be fixed, but we need to
respect the other two as well.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux