On Sunday 14 January 2001 01:06, george anzinger wrote:
> Nigel Gamble wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Roger Larsson wrote:
> > > A rethinking of the rescheduling strategy...
> >
> > Actually, I think you have more-or-less described how successful
> > preemptible kernels have already been developed, given that your
> > "sleeping spin locks" are really just sleeping mutexes (or binary
> > semaphores).
> >
> > 1. Short critical regions are protected by spin_lock_irq(). The maximum
> > value of "short" is therefore bounded by the maximum time we are happy
> > to disable (local) interrupts - ideally ~100us.
> >
> > 2. Longer regions are protected by sleeping mutexes.
> >
> > 3. Algorithms are rearchitected until all of the highly contended locks
> > are of type 1, and only low contention locks are of type 2.
> >
> > This approach has the advantage that we don't need to use a no-preempt
> > count, and test it on exit from every spinlock to see if a preempting
> > interrupt that has caused a need_resched has occurred, since we won't
> > see the interrupt until it's safe to do the preemptive resched.
>
> I agree that this was true in days of yore. But these days the irq
> instructions introduce serialization points and, me thinks, may be much
> more time consuming than the "++, --, if (false)" that a preemption
> count implemtation introduces. Could some one with a knowledge of the
> hardware comment on this?
>
> I am not suggesting that the "++, --, if (false)" is faster than an
> interrupt, but that it is faster than cli, sti. Of course we are
> assuming that there is <stuff> between the cli and the sti as there is
> between the ++ and the -- if (false).
>
The problem with counting scheme is that you can not schedule inside any
spinlock - you have to split them up. Maybe you will have to do that anyway.
But if your RT process never needs more memory - it should be quite safe.
The difference with a sleeping mutex is that it can be made lazier - keep it
in the runlist, there should be very few...
See first patch attempt.
(George, Nigel told me about your idea before I sent the previous mail. So
major influence comes from you. But I do not think that it is equivalent)
/RogerL
Note: changed email...
--- ./linux/kernel/sched.c.orig Sat Jan 13 19:19:20 2001
+++ ./linux/kernel/sched.c Sat Jan 13 23:27:13 2001
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@
* Also, dont trigger a counter recalculation.
*/
weight = -1;
- if (p->policy & SCHED_YIELD)
+ if (p->policy & (SCHED_YIELD | SCHED_SPINLOCK))
goto out;
/*
@@ -978,7 +978,7 @@
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
p = find_process_by_pid(pid);
if (p)
- retval = p->policy & ~SCHED_YIELD;
+ retval = p->policy & ~(SCHED_YIELD | SCHED_SPINLOCK);
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
out_nounlock:
@@ -1267,3 +1267,54 @@
atomic_inc(&init_mm.mm_count);
enter_lazy_tlb(&init_mm, current, cpu);
}
+
+void wakeup_spinlock_yielder(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ int need_resched = 0;
+ struct list_head *tmp;
+ struct task_struct *p;
+
+ /* I do not like this part...
+ * not SMP safe, the runqueue might change under us...
+ * can not use spinlocks...
+ * runlist might be long...
+ */
+ local_irqsave(&flags);
+ if (lock->spin) {
+ /* someone is "spinning" on it
+ * it has to have higher prio than this
+ * let go of ALL :-( spinning processes
+ */
+ lock->spin = 0;
+
+ list_for_each(tmp, &runqueue_head) {
+ p = list_entry(tmp, struct task_struct, run_list);
+ if (p->policy & SCHED_SPINLOCK) {
+ p->policy &= ~SCHED_SPINLOCK;
+ }
+ }
+
+ need_resched = 1;
+ }
+ local_irqrestore(&flags);
+
+ /* all higher prio will get a chance to run... */
+ if (need_resched)
+ schedule_running();
+}
+
+void schedule_spinlock(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ while (test_and_set(lock->lock)) {
+ /* note: owner can not race here, it has lower prio */
+
+ lock->spinon = 1;
+ p->policy |= SCHED_SPINLOCK;
+ schedule_running();
+ /* will be released in priority order */
+ }
+}
+
+
+
+
--- ./linux/include/linux/sched.h.orig Sat Jan 13 19:25:53 2001
+++ ./linux/include/linux/sched.h Sat Jan 13 19:26:31 2001
@@ -119,6 +119,7 @@
* yield the CPU for one re-schedule..
*/
#define SCHED_YIELD 0x10
+#define SCHED_SPINLOCK 0x20
struct sched_param {
int sched_priority;
--- ./linux/include/linux/spinlock.h.orig Sat Jan 13 19:40:30 2001
+++ ./linux/include/linux/spinlock.h Sat Jan 13 21:51:14 2001
@@ -66,16 +66,37 @@
typedef struct {
volatile unsigned long lock;
+ ??? queue;
} spinlock_t;
#define SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED (spinlock_t) { 0 }
+void wakeup_spinlock_yielder(spinlock_t *lock);
+void schedule_spinlock(spinlock_t *lock);
+
#define spin_lock_init(x) do { (x)->lock = 0; } while (0)
#define spin_is_locked(lock) (test_bit(0,(lock)))
-#define spin_trylock(lock) (!test_and_set_bit(0,(lock)))
+#define spin_trylock(lock) (!test_and_set_bit(0,(lock))) /* fail handled */
+
+#define spin_lock(x) do {
+ if (test_and_set(lock->lock)) \
+ schedule_spinlock(); /* kind of yield, giving low goodness, sticky */ \
+ } while (0)
+
+#define spin_unlock_wait(x) do { \
+ if (spin_is_locked(x)) { \
+ schedule_spinlock(); \
+ spin_unlock(); \
+ } \
+ } while (0)
-#define spin_lock(x) do { (x)->lock = 1; } while (0)
-#define spin_unlock_wait(x) do { } while (0)
-#define spin_unlock(x) do { (x)->lock = 0; } while (0)
+#define spin_unlock(x) do { \
+ (x)->lock = 0; \
+\
+ /* note: someone with higher prio than me, \
+ might steal the lock from even higher prio waiters here */ \
+\
+ if (lock->queue) \
+ wakeup_spinlock_yielder(lock); } while (0)
#else /* (DEBUG_SPINLOCKS >= 2) */
--- ./linux/drivers/sound/emu10k1/irqmgr.c.orig Mon Jan 8 18:49:35 2001
+++ ./linux/drivers/sound/emu10k1/irqmgr.c Mon Jan 8 19:02:46 2001
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
{
struct emu10k1_card *card = (struct emu10k1_card *) dev_id;
u32 irqstatus, tmp;
+ u32 limit_loop;
if (!(irqstatus = emu10k1_readfn0(card, IPR)))
return;
@@ -60,6 +61,7 @@
** - Eric
*/
+ limit_loop = 0; /* wrap first, wait for next zero */
do {
DPD(4, "irq status %x\n", irqstatus);
@@ -85,8 +87,12 @@
emu10k1_writefn0(card, IPR, tmp);
- } while ((irqstatus = emu10k1_readfn0(card, IPR)));
+ } while ((irqstatus = emu10k1_readfn0(card, IPR)) &&
+ --limit_loop);
+
+ if (limit_loop == 0 && irqstatus != 0)
+ printk(KERN_ERR "loop limit reached in emu10k, irqstatus %x\n",
+ irqstatus);
return;
}
-
