POSIX key structure in rbtree approach
Ashi
ashi08104 at gmail.com
Mon May 7 15:16:55 UTC 2012
I'm terribly sorry for my late reply. I'm off for my weekend.
2012/5/4 Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Ashi <ashi08104 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, all. I'm working on the "Use hash or map in POSIX keys" project.
> > As Joel said, the first thing to be determined is the problem of what
> > data goes with each thread and what goes with each key. I find it's
> > difficult to design the interface without some specific approach. And
> > since the rbtree api is available in RTEMS, I have tried to do the
> > design in the rbtree approach.
> >
> Good. The rbtree should support an efficient map operation.
>
> Gedare, thanks for your reply!
> > I find 2 data structures need revised(added): POSIX_Keys_Control and
> key_node.
> >
> > typedef struct {
> > Objects_Control Object;
> > void (*destructor)( void * );
> > key_node * key_node_ptr;
> > }POSIX_Keys_Control;
> >
> > typedef struct{
> > rtems_rbtree_node Node;
> > Objects_Id thread_id;
> > void **value;
> > }key_node;
> >
> > POSIX_Keys_Control is used to manage all keys. And key_node is the
> > structure contains key data and rbtree node.
> I think you might want an rtems_rbtree_control key_tree field in
> POSIX_Keys_Control instead of this key_node* dynamic array. Then your
> code can add structs containing an rtems_rbtree_node dynamically to
> the key_tree.
>
After read the rbtree.h in score, I find I confused the rtems_rbtree_node
and rtems_rbtree_control. It should be the rtems_rbtree_control here.
Also the key_node structure should follow a naming convention of
> POSIX_Keys_Key_node or something similar.
> API_Package_name_Struct_type_name is the general format for
> structures. API_Package_name_Method_name is the general format for
> functions. Note the mixture of lower and upper case letters.
>
I see.
> > I'm not quite sure about the Objects_Control member's function in
> > current implementation. I find key = Object.id, in which key is
> > pthread_key_t type, and _POSIX_Keys_Get(key, &location) is used to
> > find key's corresponding the_key, which is POSIX_Keys_Control type.So
> > is it the only function of Object member ?
> >
> Object_Control means the structure embeds an RTEMS Object so that the
> structure can be managed by the Object Manager whose responsibilities
> include pre-allocating enough objects of a certain type to satisfy
> requests to Create those objects.
>
> It seems to me that the Key (key_node) should be the Object since the
> number of keys is the resource being managed. The present solution
> uses an array of values (one for each thread) because each thread can
> have its own version of a given key. The key is "looked up" by the
> Object Id of the Key and then the requesting thread. What we should
> prefer is a more scalable solution that does not require
> pre-allocating an array of values for all possible threads. Something
> like...
> typedef struct {
> Objects_Control Object;
> void (*destructor)( void * );
> rtems_rbtree_node Node;
> Objects_Id thread_id;
> void **value;
> } POSIX_Keys_Control;
>
> And maybe a global:
> rtems_rbtree_control POSIX_Keys_Tree;
>
I think this is a new and great idea that I haven't thought before,Does it
mean a single POSIX_Keys_Tree contains all node in the system?
I know a rbtree contains only key data belongs to one specific key in my
design above, and I was thinking the idea of manage all keys by a rbtree,
then there would be a hiearchy: all keys are in one rbtree, and each key's
data are in their own rbtrees. But I think this design is a little complex,
and your idea is more uniform. However, will these two differ much in
runtime?
> Then you would implement an rbtree_compare function that will combine
> the POSIX_Keys_control.Object.id with POSIX_Keys_control.thread_id as
> a "key" for the rbtree to use for storing each POSIX_Keys_Control.
>
> I see, I can compare POSIX_Keys_control.Object.id first and if they are
equal, then compare the POSIX_Keys_control.thread_id.
> all key related operations are described as follow:
> - key create:
> create POSIX_Keys_Control instance and intialize an empty rbtree, in
> which rtems_rbtree_control instance will be created and an rbtree
> node's key compare function is also needed. Thread_id is compared in
> the compare function. So this approach doesdn't consider allocate same
> data for the same thread in the same key, because only different
> Thread_id are comparable. But I find something about duplicate node in
> the Gedare's rbtree patch, maybe the duplicate feature also can be
> added into POSIX key.
>
> You still want unique rbtree comparisons so that a thread can
> distinguish its own keys, unless it is valid for a thread to allocate
> multiple values with the same key?
>
> Key create should not create the red-black tree; the rbtree should be
> created during initialization of the POSIX_Keys manager---which by the
> way is improperly named right now as POSIX_Key_Manager_initialization
> and should be renamed POSIX_Keys_Manager_initialization with an s on
> Keys (or just POSIX_Keys_Initialization).
>
> I didn't notice the POSIX_Key_Manager_initialization before, thanks. BTW
I've a question about the _Objects_Initialize_information(), which
_POSIX_Key_Manager_initialization calls. I read the code of
_Objects_Initialize_information(), but still don't know what the maximum
parameter is used for? I think it's not for determining the memory size of
all objects in one manager and then allocating such size of memory, is it?
> - key delete
> > delete all the nodes in rbtree by rtems_rbtree_get_min() or
> > rtems_rbtree_get_max(), and delete the RBTree_Control,
> > POSIX_Keys_Control instance. The key data's deallocation is done by
> > user.
> >
> > - key get specific
> > we can use _RBTree_Find() to do the actually work behind
> > get_specific(), the runtime is O(log(n))
> >
> > - key set specific
> > after a proper key_node is create, we can use _RBTree_Insert() to do
> > the set specific. the runtime is rbtree insert runtime, which is
> > O(log(n)).
> >
> > I'm not sure whether this design is appropriate and this design is
> > very simple, need many more work to do. Hope further discussion to
> > make it more clear!
> >
> Simple is good. I think you're on the right track other than my few
> comments about organizing the structures. You have the right ideas for
> how to implement the Keys functions I believe.
> -Gedare
>
Yeah, it remind me the K.I.S.S. principle!
-best regards!
-zw_yao
>
> > --best regards!
> > --zw_yao
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtems-devel mailing list
> > rtems-devel at rtems.org
> > http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120507/d392404f/attachment.html>
More information about the devel
mailing list