C11 Re: [PATCH 3/6] termios: Use C11 mutex for input/output
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
Mon Dec 19 06:32:16 UTC 2016
On 16/12/16 21:50, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 17/12/16 3:26 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 15/12/16 23:34, Chris Johns wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2016 18:02, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>> On 14/12/16 22:15, Chris Johns wrote:
>>>>> On 15/12/2016 00:39, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>>> Would the "tiny" footprint be smaller if all internal services
>>>>> including compiler thread support are made C11? Could this actually be
>>>>> done? Parts of POSIX has been creeping in over time so the position is
>>>>> a little confused at the moment. I am not sure about a bits and pieces
>>>>> approach, maybe a full switch is made.
>>>> Yes, the footprint would be smaller. If we provide self-contained
>>>> threads, then the footprint would be much smaller, e.g. no object
>>>> administration, no heap.
>>> Great. This is a powerful reason to look at moving in this direction
>>> and removing the remaining POSIX usage in libstdthreads.
>>> A brief audit of rtems.git shows the change is possible with less than
>>> 30 Classic task creates and a similar number of semaphore creates so a
>>> full change look reachable which is nice.
>>> Should we look at moving all internal services to C11 and standardise
>>> it? I think there is value in doing this. It can be a post 4.12 branch
>> In contrast to the C11 mutexes, I don't see a real value in moving from
>> Classic API tasks to C11 threads. The Classic API you have more control
>> over task attributes, modes, priority, stack size, etc.
> As an interim solution this is possible but we should consider and plan
> the long term solution.
> I took a closer look at C11 threads and see the thread support is not
> suitable. I have concerns about mixing the API to get a "tiny" image and
> was hoping a single API could do this, ie the attributes of the API
> should be consistent across all calls and meet a minimum set of required
> The lack of thread attributes raises a difficult issue we need to
> consider a little more. I do not like the idea of a thread created with
> thrd_create and then needing attributes set by the another API. I
> thinking mixing is an architecturally poor path to follow.
The C11 threads are next be useless in the context of a real-time
operating system with a priority based scheduler.
> The C11 mutex is thin and the storage model is attractive. The FreeBSD
> man page for C11 functions states:
> As of ISO/IEC 9899:2011 (``ISO C11''), the C standard includes an API
> for writing multithreaded applications. Since POSIX.1 already
> includes a threading API that is used by virtually any multithreaded
> application, the interface provided by the C standard can be
> considered superfluous.
I agree with the FreeBSD man page, however, the quite primitive and
limited C11 mutexs and condition variables have one good side. There is
no need to check at run-time in each operation which object flavour is
used actually. For plain mutexes they are perfect.
> Should we be looking at the POSIX interface and doing this work there?
> That is move the POSIX implementation away from the RTEMS object model.
> Could this be done and would the same mutex performance be achieved?
> If the same storage model and performance can be gained with POSIX why
> not look at moving in this direction.
We should change the POSIX synchronization objects
* condition variables,
* keys, and
into self-contained objects from my point of view. Since the POSIX types
are now defined in a system-specific header file, this is quite easy:
Its about a man week of work to do this.
The performance will be not optimal, since we have to check if we
actually have a non-recursive, recursive, ceiling or robust mutex.
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