From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4DFB3521.2010109@domain.hid> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:06:09 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4DFB1DC3.80203@domain.hid> <4DFB32B2.1010904@domain.hid> <4DFB3466.10908@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4DFB3466.10908@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] nucleus: Fix interrupt handler tails List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Xenomai core On 06/17/2011 01:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-06-17 12:55, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> On 06/17/2011 11:26 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Our current interrupt handlers assume that they leave over the same task >>> and CPU they entered. But CONFIG_XENO_HW_UNLOCKED_SWITCH and commit >>> f6af9b831c broke this assumption: xnpod_schedule invoked from the >>> handler tail can now actually trigger a domain migration >> >> What unlocked context swith introduce from my point of view is simply >> sections where interrupt happen which do not reschedule. >> >> f6af9b831c introduce a rescheduling point, but does not change what >> happens during the interrupt handler either. >> >> So, I do not really understand this commit message. Either we can assume >> that interrupt handlers migrate tasks or not, but this does not seem to >> have anything to do with unlocked context switches or commit f6af9b831c. > > It has: Task is about to relax, re-enables interrupts in > xnpod_resume_thread, IRQ hits, handler is entered over the relaxing RT > task, xnpod_schedule in its tail performs the switch to root, which then > continues to relaxed task, IRQ tail resumes over a different task, on > SMP potentially also on a different CPU. I can send you a the trace if > you want to have a closer look. Ok. Got it. But what has this to do with unlocked context switches ? -- Gilles.