From: Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>
Cc: "xenomai@xenomai.org" <xenomai@xenomai.org>
Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Xenomai 2.6.0, or -rc1?
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:37:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E57E7FD.2050809@domain.hid> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E57E3A9.2000400@domain.hid>
On 08/26/2011 08:19 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-08-26 20:07, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 08/26/2011 03:05 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2011-08-26 14:34, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think it is about time we release Xenomai 2.6.0. Has anyone anything
>>>> pending (maybe Alex)? Should we release an -rc first?
>>>
>>> No patches ATM, but [1] is still an open bug - a bug that affects the ABI.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>> [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.real-time.xenomai.devel/8343
>>>
>>
>> I had forgotten about this one. So, the only real problem is if a
>> SCHED_NOTOTHER thread switches to SCHED_OTHER, this appears to be a
>> corner case, so, I wonder if you should not simply add a special
>> treatment, only for this corner case.
>>
>> What I have in mind is keeping a list of xnsynch in kernel-space (this
>> basically means having an xnholder_t more in the xnsynch structure), and
>> when we trip the corner case (thread with SCHED_FIFO switches to
>> SCHED_OTHER), walk the list to find how many xnsynch the thread is the
>> owner, we have that info in kernel-space, and set the refcnt accordingly.
>>
>> Or does it still sound overkill?
>>
>
> Mmh, need to think about it. Yeah, we do not support
> PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER, so we do not share that part of the problem
> with futexes.
Actually, we could implement PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER: when the magic
is wrong, just issue a pthread_mutex_init syscall, and try locking
again. But the problem is that this particular call to
pthread_mutex_lock would be much heavier than locking an initialized
mutex for reasons which are not obvious (besides, we would have to
handle concurrency by some way, like having a pthread_once_t in
pthread_mutex_t). I find not having PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER more
clear, even if this makes us not really posix compliant.
>
> If we have all objects and can explore ownership, we can also implement
> robust mutexes this way, i.e. waiter signaling when the owner dies.
>
> Jan
>
--
Gilles.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-26 18:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-26 12:34 [Xenomai-core] Xenomai 2.6.0, or -rc1? Gilles Chanteperdrix
2011-08-26 13:05 ` Jan Kiszka
2011-08-26 18:07 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2011-08-26 18:19 ` Jan Kiszka
2011-08-26 18:37 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix [this message]
2011-08-26 15:34 ` Philippe Gerum
2011-08-29 23:00 ` Alexis Berlemont
2011-08-30 11:05 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2011-08-30 18:53 ` Julien Delange
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=4E57E7FD.2050809@domain.hid \
--to=gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org \
--cc=jan.kiszka@domain.hid \
--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.