Re: [Xenomai] rtdm_mutex_init on forge

[Philippe Gerum <rpm@xenomai.org>]

On 05/29/2014 06:34 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 05/29/2014 06:30 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> On 05/29/2014 06:19 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On 05/29/2014 05:42 PM, Matthias Schneider wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I have a question about rtdm_mutex_init in forge. BUG_ON is
>>>> triggered each time I create an rtdm_mutex. This seems to be
>>>> due to a check in xnsynch_init, while apparently some
>>>> implementation is still missing in rtdm_mutex_init():
>>>>
>>>> void rtdm_mutex_init(rtdm_mutex_t *mutex)
>>>> {
>>>>           spl_t s;
>>>>
>>>>           /* Make atomic for re-initialisation support */
>>>>           xnlock_get_irqsave(&nklock, s);
>>>>
>>>>           xnsynch_init(&mutex->synch_base,
>>>>                        XNSYNCH_PRIO | XNSYNCH_PIP | XNSYNCH_OWNER, NULL);
>>>>
>>>>           xnlock_put_irqrestore(&nklock, s);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void xnsynch_init(struct xnsynch *synch, int flags, atomic_long_t
>>>> *fastlock)
>>>> {
>>>>           if (flags & XNSYNCH_PIP)
>>>>                   flags |= XNSYNCH_PRIO | XNSYNCH_OWNER;  /*
>>>> Obviously... */
>>>>
>>>>           synch->status = flags & ~XNSYNCH_CLAIMED;
>>>>           synch->owner = NULL;
>>>>           synch->cleanup = NULL;  /* Only works for PIP-enabled
>>>> objects. */
>>>>           synch->wprio = -1;
>>>>           INIT_LIST_HEAD(&synch->pendq);
>>>>
>>>>           if (flags & XNSYNCH_OWNER) {
>>>>                   BUG_ON(fastlock == NULL); // <---------- Obviously
>>>> this is
>>>>                                             //             always
>>>> occurs for an
>>>>                                             //             rtdm_mutex.
>>>>                   synch->fastlock = fastlock;
>>>>                   atomic_long_set(fastlock, XN_NO_HANDLE);
>>>>           } else
>>>>                   synch->fastlock = NULL;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> At the moment I am not sure if the atomic_long_t counter needs be
>>>> added to
>>>> rtdm_mutex or the flags need to be changed. Thanks for your help,
>>>>
>>>
>>> RTDM mutexes cannot and do not have to provide fast locking memory, the
>>> assertion I have added to xnsynch_init() is broken. Will fix.
>>
>> Yes, the intent was to acknowledge the fact that we know how to
>> implement fast locking on all supported arch, rtdm was overlooked. So
>> this spurious assertion builds on the wrong assumption that a NULL
>> fastlock cannot happen with priority inversion protected locks.
>>
>
> Adding fastlock to RTDM mutexes looks possible, and would create a
> lockless fast patch for them as well.
>

yes, this is the way I intend to fix this if possible (did not see any 
showstopper yet): make the fastlock a mandatory feature including for 
rtdm. The fastlock area could just live in the rtdm mutex descriptor.

-- 
Philippe.