* Moving inband work off stack - remaing cases
@ 2021-06-11 11:21 Jan Kiszka
2021-06-11 15:35 ` Philippe Gerum
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2021-06-11 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philippe Gerum, Xenomai
Hi Philippe,
I'm trying to understand the reasoning for moving inband work struct for
the remaining cases of the triggering stack.
To my understanding, this is not needed for xnthread_map (to be
privatized soon, so only for the in-tree case) because the caller
providing the struct waits for the completion which will be triggered
via the inband handler.
Looking at xnthread_relax(), the same should apply to post_wakeup -
provided it is inlined into xnthread_relax - because, again, we won't
leave that function before the signal was sent, thus the work consumed.
Am I missing something?
Jan
--
Siemens AG, T RDA IOT
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving inband work off stack - remaing cases
2021-06-11 11:21 Moving inband work off stack - remaing cases Jan Kiszka
@ 2021-06-11 15:35 ` Philippe Gerum
2021-06-11 16:19 ` Jan Kiszka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Gerum @ 2021-06-11 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka; +Cc: Xenomai
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> writes:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> I'm trying to understand the reasoning for moving inband work struct for
> the remaining cases of the triggering stack.
>
> To my understanding, this is not needed for xnthread_map (to be
> privatized soon, so only for the in-tree case) because the caller
> providing the struct waits for the completion which will be triggered
> via the inband handler.
>
Correct.
> Looking at xnthread_relax(), the same should apply to post_wakeup -
> provided it is inlined into xnthread_relax - because, again, we won't
> leave that function before the signal was sent, thus the work consumed.
>
Correct.
> Am I missing something?
>
Nope.
--
Philippe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving inband work off stack - remaing cases
2021-06-11 15:35 ` Philippe Gerum
@ 2021-06-11 16:19 ` Jan Kiszka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2021-06-11 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philippe Gerum; +Cc: Xenomai
On 11.06.21 17:35, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>
> Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Philippe,
>>
>> I'm trying to understand the reasoning for moving inband work struct for
>> the remaining cases of the triggering stack.
>>
>> To my understanding, this is not needed for xnthread_map (to be
>> privatized soon, so only for the in-tree case) because the caller
>> providing the struct waits for the completion which will be triggered
>> via the inband handler.
>>
>
> Correct.
>
>> Looking at xnthread_relax(), the same should apply to post_wakeup -
>> provided it is inlined into xnthread_relax - because, again, we won't
>> leave that function before the signal was sent, thus the work consumed.
>>
>
> Correct.
>
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>
> Nope.
>
Perfect.
I'm finalizing the patches to merge dovetail completely into next. With
your unicore-SMP fix, we should even get a green test pipeline soon.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, T RDA IOT
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-06-11 16:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-06-11 11:21 Moving inband work off stack - remaing cases Jan Kiszka
2021-06-11 15:35 ` Philippe Gerum
2021-06-11 16:19 ` Jan Kiszka
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.