Can you please print the output from spsem04 without strict-order enabled? (Or, without your patches to fix it?)
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Saurabh Gadia <ga...@usc.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > To validate spsem03 test case I created a new test case by modifying > spsem02. Below is the description of the new test case: > > Task: TA01 having priority 36, TA02 having priority 34, TA03 having priority > 32. > > Throughout the course following actions are performed: > > TA01 acquires S0 > TA02 acquires S1 and then S0 > TA03 acquires S1 > > Timeline: > > TA01 acquires S0 with priority 36. > TA01 spawns TA02 having priority 32. > TA02 takes over as it has higher priority than TA01. > TA02 acquires S1 with priority 34. > TA02 tries to acquire S0 but it is locked so promotes TA01 priority to 34. > TA01 gains control and now creates TA03 having 32. > TA03 takes over and tries to acquire S1. But it is acquired by TA02. > TA03 promotes TA02 priority to 32. But it observe that TA02 is also waiting > on mutex held by TA01. > TA03 promotes TA01 priority to 32 as well. (Indirect reference case). > TA01 get control. It releases S0 and now its priority becomes 36 so TA02 > takes over, > TA02 acquires S0. TA02 releases S0 and S1. And its priority now becomes > 34(real priority) > TA03 takes over. It acquires S1. Releases S1 and suspends self. > Now TA02 gets control. It also suspends self. > Now TA01 gets control and exits the test. > > Following is the output: > *** BEGIN OF TEST SPSEM 4 *** > init: S0 created > init: S1 created > init: TA01 created with priority 36 > init: TA02 created with priority 34 > init: TA03 created with priority 32 > TA01: started with priority 36 > TA01: priority 36, holding S0 (acquires S0) > TA02: started with priority 34 (creates TA02) > TA02: priority 34, holding S1 (acquires S1) > TA01: priority 34, holding S0 and now creating TA03 > TA03: started with priority 32 > TA01: priority 32 Releasing s0 (Priority of TA02 and TA01 got promoted to > 32). > TA02: priority 32, holding S1,S0 > TA02: priority 32 before releasing S0 > TA02: priority 32 after releasing S0 > TA02: priority 32 before releasing S1 > TA03: priority 32, holding S1 > TA03: priority 32 > TA03: suspending > TA02: priority 34 after releasing S1 > TA02: suspending > TA01: priority 36 > TA01: exiting > *** END OF TEST SPSEM 4 *** > [Inferior 1 (process 42000) exited normally] > > > So this is sufficient to prove that spsem03 test passes as we just modelled > it above. > > > > > Thanks, > > Saurabh Gadia > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Saurabh Gadia <ga...@usc.edu> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have implemented uniprocessor model of nested mutex problem in rtems. >> its still in basic form. I tried to multiplex it with the existing solution >> but was finding hard time. To push ahead, I decided to have separate >> functions for uniprocessor and SMP(kept default behavior) and with your >> review comments will know what to do. Following is the link for the git >> repo: https://github.com/saurabhgadia4/rtems/commits/master and its JPF >> branch: >> https://github.com/saurabhgadia4/lock-model/blob/uniproc-new1/rtems/Mutex.java >> >> I have also tested spsem01, 02, 03 test cases. Following are the links for >> the test case results which states output before solution and after applying >> the solution. I am still not getting whether my code is passing spsem03 test >> or not. How can I verify that? >> >> Test Case Link: >> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B44HRKVuGCkFfnFDVmxqQzZZUzljNUg4YmVPZmEybEp2Q0NNclpvS2FvemZ4Tm5Xa19nemM&usp=sharing >> >> Thanks, >> >> Saurabh Gadia > > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
