From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <52AF2C6E.8010701@xenomai.org> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 17:38:06 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <52AEB440.5090103@xenomai.org> <52AF2686.7010907@xenomai.org> <52AF26C1.1060300@xenomai.org> <52AF2BDF.9000801@xenomai.org> In-Reply-To: <52AF2BDF.9000801@xenomai.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] rehashing List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Philippe Gerum Cc: Xenomai On 12/16/2013 05:35 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote: > On 12/16/2013 05:13 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> On 12/16/2013 05:12 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>> On 12/16/2013 09:05 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Philippe, >>>> >>>> looking at the registry code, I had an idea: we could increase the >>>> number of descriptors dynamically when they are exhausted, and increase >>>> the hash size as well. This would make the configurable number of slots >>>> a starting point, but not a liimit. The access to the registry by name >>>> does not really need to be fast, so we could protect it with a mutex >>> >>> The registry hash is a low contention resource, so using a dedicated >>> mutex is likely more efficient than grabbing the big nklock in most >>> cases anyway. >>> >>>> (that would mean that all services accessing the registry by name would >>>> need to run in secondary mode, but I am not sure we care, and if we do, >>>> we can use an xnsynch instead). >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>> >>> Recent Cobalt users of the registry put aside, this is basically about >>> deciding whether: >>> >>> - issuing connect() on a rtipc socket should switch the caller to >>> secondary mode, since other in-kernel users disappeared during the Great >>> Refactoring (tm). bind() does have such requirement already. >>> >>> - all present and future callers of xnregistry_remove() should run in >>> secondary mode as well. There is only one caller remaining so far, and >>> it does (i.e. thread cleanup code). >> >> sem_destroy/sem_close/sem_unlink, pthread_mutex_destroy, and >> pthread_cond_destroy now call xnregistry_remove. >> > > Since your recent additions involve dropping keys from the registry from > mutex and cond deletion routines, I would then stick with an > implementation that allows primary-mode calls. Ok, just forgot that mutex and conds are anonymous, so, they need not access the hash table, only sem_unlink and sem_open will access the hash. Ok, I need to see what exactly needs to be protected during the rehash. Maybe not much after all. -- Gilles.