Re: [Xenomai] core-3.5 for x86

[Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>]

On 12/17/2012 05:08 PM, Wolfgang Mauerer wrote:

> On 15/12/12 23:16, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On 12/15/2012 11:03 PM, Wolfgang Mauerer wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2012 22:24, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>> I see some (recent) activity on this git repository:
>>>> https://github.com/siemens/ipipe/commits/core-3.5_for-upstream
>>>>
>>>> In what state is this branch, can I pull from it?
>>> please don't pull yet, I need to port a few more patches forward
>>> and fix one known issue with the tree. But I'll try to send a
>>> pull/discussion request next week.
>>>
>>>> At least the changes allowing preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() to be
>>>> called from non-root context look dubious.
>>> are you referring to 767f0d43fe3? This one still carries a TODO
>>> item in the description to remind me to check with which
>>> non-x86 archs this can cause problems, and what we can do about
>>> them.
>>
>>
>> Actually, we already have ipipe_safe_current(), so I guess what you need
>> is ipipe_safe_current_thread_info() ?
> 
> yes, that makes sense -- how about something like
> 
> #ifndef ipipe_safe_current_thread_info
> #define ipipe_safe_current_thread_info()				\
> 	({								\
> 		struct thread_info *__ti__;				\
> 		unsigned long __flags__;				\
> 		__flags__ = hard_smp_local_irq_save();			\
> 		__ti__ = ipipe_test_foreign_stack() ?			\
> 			&init_thread_info : current_thread_info();	\
> 		hard_smp_local_irq_restore(__flags__);			\
> 		__ti__;							\
> 	})
> #endif
> 
> and use that as basis to determine the preemption counter in  preempt_count()?
> Unfortunately, solely #including linux/ipipe.h into linux/preempt.h 
> leads to complete havoc, most likely caused by some spinlock preprocessor magic.
> So I need to figure out a clean way of getting this definition into preempt.h
> before I prepare a patch.
> 
> Thanks, Wolfgang
> 


Needless to say, you have to pay attention that add_preempt_count() and
sub_preempt_count() are no longer inlined in this case, otherwise this
will cause a lot of bloat. Also, you probably want safe_preempt_disable
and safe_preempt_enable which are nops for foreign stacks, and this
should be replaced unconditionnaly, but only for configurations
requiring it (such as CONFIG_PERF ?).

-- 
                                                                Gilles.