From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <53354665.10604@sigmatek.at> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:52:37 +0100 From: Erwin Pranz MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <53316C4C.6000708@sigmatek.at> <53335D9A.9040902@xenomai.org> <5333F22F.70805@xenomai.org> <53345143.7000009@xenomai.org> In-Reply-To: <53345143.7000009@xenomai.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] Rescnt imbalance in rtdm_mutex_timedlock Reply-To: erwin.pranz@sigmatek.at List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: xenomai@xenomai.org Am 27.03.2014 17:26, schrieb Philippe Gerum: > On 03/27/2014 04:02 PM, Henri Roosen wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Philippe Gerum > > wrote: >> >> On 03/27/2014 12:07 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> >> On 03/26/2014 05:49 PM, Henri Roosen wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Erwin Pranz >> > >__wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I am using rtdm_mutex_lock/rtdm_mutex___unlock in a rtdm >> driver and I get a >> signal SIGDEBUG_MIGRATE_PRIOINV when I call the driver >> from a priority-0 >> thread.The signal is sent in xnsynch_release_thread when >> rescnt is 0 on a >> XNOTHER thread, which means that rescnt is not balanced. >> >> I think the reason why rescnt is not balanced is in >> rtdm_mutex_timedlock: >> when the owner of the mutex is NULL, the owner is >> changed to the calling >> thread, but rescnt is not increased. >> >> I suggest the following fix in rtdm_mutex_timedlock: >> - else if >> (likely(xnsynch_owner(&mutex->__synch_base) == NULL)) >> + else if >> (likely(xnsynch_owner(&mutex->__synch_base) == NULL)) { >> >> xnsynch_set_owner(&mutex->__synch_base, curr_thread); >> + if (xnthread_test_state(curr___thread, >> XNOTHER)) >> + xnthread_inc_rescnt(curr___thread); >> + } >> >> >> Hi Gilles, >> >> Could you maybe elaborate on this? It seems the resource >> counting is not in >> balance. It would be great to know if this the correct way >> to fix it. >> >> The problem should be easily reproducible by having just one >> shadowed >> priority 0 thread that somehow calls rtdm_mutex_lock >> directly followed by >> rtdm_mutex_unlock. This will trigger the code in >> ksrc/nucleus/synch.c that >> was added by commit-486afd15, which sends >> SIGDEBUG_MIGRATE_PRIOINV on >> Xenomai v2.6.2.1. It shouldn't send any signal in that case, >> as nothing is >> wrong. >> >> Note we are on Xenomai v2.6.2.1. Xenomai v2.6.3 sends (the >> better name for >> it) SIGDEBUG_RESCNT_IMBALANCE. >> >> >> To be completely frank, I expected Jan to answer this mail as this >> concerns RTDM. Anyway, I had a look into it, and: >> - the RTDM skin is not alone in this case, several skins >> implement the >> same pattern (if owner == NULL, set owner, then return); >> - adding calls to xnthread_inc_rescnt everywhere does not seem >> right, I >> would prefer to move this inside some xnsynch_ service. The best >> candidate I found for that is xnsynch_set_owner, though I am not >> sure if >> this will work, especially with fastsynchs. >> >> >> >> Indeed this wouldn't. I suspect the skins mentioned did not have >> access to xnsynch_acquire(), and were not updated when the >> auto-relax feature was introduced for XNOTHER threads. >> >> We could provide a helper for fast grabbing a mutex which has no >> fast locking support shared with userland, saving a call to >> xnsynch_acquire() in the non-contended case, e.g. >> >> diff --git a/include/nucleus/synch.h b/include/nucleus/synch.h >> index 7deae21..87456ea 100644 >> --- a/include/nucleus/synch.h >> +++ b/include/nucleus/synch.h >> @@ -192,6 +192,22 @@ static inline void xnsynch_set_owner(struct >> xnsynch *synch, >> synch->owner = thread; >> } >> >> +static inline int xnsynch_fast_grab(struct xnsynch *synch, >> + struct xnthread *thread) >> +{ >> + XENO_BUGON(NUCLEUS, xnsynch_fastlock_p(synch)); >> + >> + if (likely(xnsynch_owner(synch) != NULL)) >> + return 0; >> + >> + xnsynch_set_owner(synch, thread); >> + >> + if (xnthread_test_state(thread, XNOTHER)) >> + xnthread_inc_rescnt(thread); >> + >> + return 1; >> +} >> + >> static inline void xnsynch_register_cleanup(__struct xnsynch *synch, >> void (*handler)(struct >> xnsynch *)) >> { >> diff --git a/ksrc/skins/rtdm/drvlib.c b/ksrc/skins/rtdm/drvlib.c >> index 391d45f..338005d 100644 >> --- a/ksrc/skins/rtdm/drvlib.c >> +++ b/ksrc/skins/rtdm/drvlib.c >> @@ -1538,9 +1538,7 @@ int rtdm_mutex_timedlock(rtdm___mutex_t >> *mutex, nanosecs_rel_t timeout, >> if (unlikely(xnsynch_test_flags(&__mutex->synch_base, >> RTDM_SYNCH_DELETED))) >> err = -EIDRM; >> >> - else if (likely(xnsynch_owner(&mutex->__synch_base) == NULL)) >> - xnsynch_set_owner(&mutex->__synch_base, curr_thread); >> - else { >> + else if (!xnsynch_fast_grab(&mutex->__synch_base, >> curr_thread)) { >> /* Redefinition to clarify XENO_ASSERT output */ >> #define mutex_owner xnsynch_owner(&mutex->synch___base) >> XENO_ASSERT(RTDM, mutex_owner != curr_thread, >> >> The VxWorks and VRTX skins would have to use it as well. >> >> >> Thanks for the replies! We'll give this patch a try for the RTDM case. >> > Minor points, but a compiler hint above was inverted and eventually useless, and the naming not descriptive enough. Take #2: > > diff --git a/include/nucleus/synch.h b/include/nucleus/synch.h > index 7deae21..09ebdbf 100644 > --- a/include/nucleus/synch.h > +++ b/include/nucleus/synch.h > @@ -192,6 +192,22 @@ static inline void xnsynch_set_owner(struct xnsynch *synch, > synch->owner = thread; > } > > +static inline int xnsynch_try_grab(struct xnsynch *synch, > + struct xnthread *thread) > +{ > + XENO_BUGON(NUCLEUS, xnsynch_fastlock_p(synch)); > + > + if (xnsynch_owner(synch) != NULL) > + return 0; > + > + xnsynch_set_owner(synch, thread); > + > + if (xnthread_test_state(thread, XNOTHER)) > + xnthread_inc_rescnt(thread); > + > + return 1; > +} > + > static inline void xnsynch_register_cleanup(struct xnsynch *synch, > void (*handler)(struct xnsynch *)) > { > diff --git a/ksrc/skins/rtdm/drvlib.c b/ksrc/skins/rtdm/drvlib.c > index 391d45f..aa85d11 100644 > --- a/ksrc/skins/rtdm/drvlib.c > +++ b/ksrc/skins/rtdm/drvlib.c > @@ -1538,9 +1538,7 @@ int rtdm_mutex_timedlock(rtdm_mutex_t *mutex, nanosecs_rel_t timeout, > if (unlikely(xnsynch_test_flags(&mutex->synch_base, > RTDM_SYNCH_DELETED))) > err = -EIDRM; > - else if (likely(xnsynch_owner(&mutex->synch_base) == NULL)) > - xnsynch_set_owner(&mutex->synch_base, curr_thread); > - else { > + else if (!xnsynch_try_grab(&mutex->synch_base, curr_thread)) { > /* Redefinition to clarify XENO_ASSERT output */ > #define mutex_owner xnsynch_owner(&mutex->synch_base) > XENO_ASSERT(RTDM, mutex_owner != curr_thread, > Hello, I tried this patch, but it did not compile: In file included from include/xenomai/nucleus/registry.h:33:0, from include/xenomai/nucleus/thread.h:160, from include/xenomai/nucleus/sched.h:31, from include/xenomai/nucleus/pod.h:34, from include/xenomai/nucleus/xenomai.h:23, from include/xenomai/rtdm/rtdm_driver.h:37, from drivers/xenomai/can/rtcan_internal.h:30, from drivers/xenomai/can/rtcan_dev.c:32: include/xenomai/nucleus/synch.h: In function 'xnsynch_try_grab': include/xenomai/nucleus/synch.h:205:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'xnthread_test_state' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] include/xenomai/nucleus/synch.h:206:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'xnthread_inc_rescnt' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] I think there is a circular dependency problem in the header files: - thread.h includes sync.h via registry.h at a point before xnthread_test_state/xnthread_inc_rescnt is defined - synch.h needs the defines from thread.h (xnthread_test_state/xnthread_inc_rescnt) I could not resolve this dependency Erwin