Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 23:13 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>> Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>> On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 00:34 +0100, Alexis Berlemont wrote: >>>>> Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 17:13 +0100, Alexis Berlemont wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:40 +0100, Alexis Berlemont wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry for answering so late. I took a few days off far from any internet >>>>>>>>> connection. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems you sent many mails related with Analogy. Many thanks for your >>>>>>>>> interest. I have not read all of them yet. However, I am beginning by >>>>>>>>> this one (which seems unanswered). The answer is quick and easy :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Daniele Nicolodi wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hello. I'm looking into the analogy cmd_write example. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I understand the reason for the rt_task_set_mode() function >>>>>>>>>> call into the data acquisition loop (lines 413 or 464 in the code >>>>>>>>>> shipped with xenomai 2.5.1). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I do not understand why we have to set the primary mode at every >>>>>>>>>> iteration, when we set it before for the task (line 380). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is it because the dump_function() uses system calls that can make the >>>>>>>>>> task to switch to secondary mode, or there is a deeper reason I'm missing? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are right. The dumping routine triggers a switch to secondary mode. >>>>>>>>> That is why, the program switches back to primary mode after. >>>>>>>> This is wrong. The Xenomai core will switch your real-time thread to >>>>>>>> primary mode automatically when running a4l_insn* calls that end up >>>>>>>> invoking rt_dev_ioctl(), since you did declare a real-time entry point >>>>>>>> for this one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't understand. I thought that rt_dev_ioctl() triggered an >>>>>>> __rtdm_ioctl syscall, which, according to the rtdm systab, is declared >>>>>>> with the flags "__xn_exec_current | __xn_exec_adaptive". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So as __rt_dev_ioctl (the kernel handler behind the ioctl syscall) will >>>>>>> return -ENOSYS neither in RT nor in NRT mode (because analogy declares >>>>>>> both RT and NRT fops entries), I thought there was no automatic >>>>>>> mode-switching. >>>>>> The point is that your ioctl_nrt handler should return -ENOSYS when it >>>>>> detects that the current request should be processed by the converse >>>>>> domain, to trigger the switch to primary mode. This is why the adaptive >>>>>> tag is provided in the first place. >>>>> The problem is that rtdm does not provide any function to know whether >>>>> the thread is shadowed. We just have rtdm_in_rt_context() which tells us >>>>> whether the thread is RT or not. If it is NRT, we cannot distinguish a >>>>> Linux thread from a Xenomai one. >>>>> >>>>> I thought with a little patch like this in ksrc/skins/rtdm/core.c, we >>>>> could force -ENOSYS if the calling thread was a Xenomai NRT thread: >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/ksrc/skins/rtdm/core.c b/ksrc/skins/rtdm/core.c >>>>> index 8677c47..cc0cfe9 100644 >>>>> --- a/ksrc/skins/rtdm/core.c >>>>> +++ b/ksrc/skins/rtdm/core.c >>>>> @@ -423,6 +423,9 @@ do { \ >>>>> \ >>>>> if (rtdm_in_rt_context()) \ >>>>> ret = ops->operation##_rt(context, user_info, args); \ >>>>> + else if (xnshadow_thread(user_info) != NULL && \ >>>>> + ops->operation##_rt != (void *)rtdm_no_support) \ >>>>> + ret = -ENOSYS; \ >>>>> else \ >>>>> ret = ops->operation##_nrt(context, user_info, args); \ >>>>> \ >>>> No, this would be a half-working kludge. But I think you have pinpointed >>>> a more general issue with RTDM: syscalls should be tagged as both >>>> adaptive and conforming, instead of bearing the __xn_exec_current bit. >>>> Actually, we do want the current domain to change when it is not the >>>> most appropriate, which __xn_exec_current prevents so far. >>>> >>>> What we rather want is to have shadows migrating to primary mode when >>>> running rtdm_ioctl, since this is the preferred mode of operation for >>>> Xenomai threads, so that ioctl_rt is always invoked first when present, >>>> giving an opportunity to forward the request to secondary mode by >>>> returning -ENOSYS. Conforming calls always enforce the preferred runtime >>>> mode, i.e. primary for Xenomai shadows, secondary for plain Linux tasks. >>>> That logic applies to all RTDM syscalls actually. >>>> >>>> __xn_exec_current allows application code to infer that the RTDM driver >>>> might behave differently depending on the current runtime mode of the >>>> calling thread, which is very much error-prone, and likely not what was >>>> envisioned initially. >>> Argh.... The switchtest driver is relying on __xn_exec_current to have >>> context switches occur precisely in the mode we want. __xn_exec_adaptive >>> introduce more context switches around which we can not place separate >>> checks for fpu context, so, in short, breaks it badly. Fixing this >>> requires turning the switchtest driver into a skin with its own syscalls. >>> >>> Note the sequence which occurs when a shadowed thread running in >>> secondary mode calls an ioctl for which only an nrt implementation occurs: >>> the thread is hardened to handle the ioctl >>> ioctl_rt is called which returns -ENOSYS >>> the thread is relaxed >>> ioctl_nrt is called >>> >>> It boils down to putting an rt_task_set_mode(PRIMARY) before each rtdm >>> syscall made by a thread with a shadow, and in fact seems to result in >>> as bad a result. Is it really what we want? The __xn_exec_current bit >>> resulted in a more lazy behaviour. >>> >>> Also note that, at least when using the posix skin, almost all threads >>> have shadows, and only the priority makes the difference between a >>> really critical thread, and non critical threads with the null priority. >>> So, this will happen all the time. >> Right. Actually, we only need the conforming property for the (fairly >> rare) case that a service is provided in both flavors. > > Wrong. You want conforming because real-time is the preferred mode of > operations for real-time threads. Sorry, wrong as well. :) Setup/reconfiguration phases happening over already shadowed threads can suffer significantly when playing ping-pong via mode switches. That's why threads stay in secondary mode after their first Linux syscall and are not immediately switched back. Jan > >> And if such a >> service is hidden behind a single IOCTL command, it's even not possible >> to detect this at RTDM level. We do need help from the driver or its >> user space library, or we need to give them the tools to do the adaptive >> switch themselves. >> >> So three options: >> - Implement adaptive switching inside RTDM >> o For all major functions != ioctl, we need to check for a shadow >> thread and the availability of an RT handler => switch >> o For IOCTLs we need an extra bit, likely in the IOC_TYPE namespace >> to indicate the availability of an RT handler. This comes at the >> risk of colliding with existing drivers that do not use the >> standard IOCTL encoding scheme. >> - Push adaptive switching into the driver >> o That means providing the information if the caller could be >> switched to RT context. >> - Push adaptive switching into the helper library >> o That means exporting a service that performs a switch if the >> caller is switchable, but currently relaxed. >> >> The second option is the least invasive one, I think. The first one is >> most transparent, but also more fragile and complex than the rest. Three >> is likely not Philippe's favorite as it would introduce yet another >> explicit mode switching mechanism. >> >> Opinions? Other ideas? >> >> Jan >> > >