SMP: ISR disable/enable vs. mutual exclustion
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
Mon Nov 18 09:42:38 UTC 2013
I will likely work on the R-B tree implementation in the future (first step is
to do some benchmarks) so I want to continue with this thread first.
On 2013-08-28 19:02, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> The containers basic API should be without locking.
>> >You usually need something like atomic extract from one list
>> >and insert to the other list. And you waste additional
>> >locking in list remove/insert when you have to provide
>> >lock to make operations sequence atomic.
>> >There is usually good/natural place where lock belongs
>> >in such cases. Or you do not want to use IRQ+spin-lock
>> >there but whole sequence is protected by mutex (should be
>> >with priority inheritance for each case).
> I tend to agree. Let the "user" of the data structure handle the
> locking around it at least for RTEMS core code. But this means right
> now going through all of RTEMS core and replacing chain_xxx with
> Conversely, we make all the functions unprotected by default and
> introduce "_protected" variants for the API layer.
Are there any objections to remove the protected R-B tree functions from all
APIs and provide only unprotected operations? I would like to do this now
(before the RTEMS 4.11 release) since there is currently no RTEMS release with
the public R-B tree API.
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
More information about the devel