[PATCH 29/30] leon, greth: SMP support by using spin-lock protection

Daniel Hellstrom daniel at gaisler.com
Tue May 2 08:51:49 UTC 2017


On 2017-05-02 10:27, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
>
> On 02/05/17 10:16, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 2017-05-02 10:00, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 02/05/17 09:32, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
>>>> On 2017-05-02 07:48, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13/04/17 21:31, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/net/greth.c | 134 
>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++--------------
>>>>>>   1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/net/greth.c 
>>>>>> b/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/net/greth.c
>>>>>> index 7726799..9af2de2 100644
>>>>>> --- a/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/net/greth.c
>>>>>> +++ b/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/net/greth.c
>>>>>> @@ -41,6 +41,18 @@
>>>>>>   #include <netinet/in.h>
>>>>>>   #include <netinet/if_ether.h>
>>>>>>   +#include <rtems/score/isrlock.h> /* spin-lock */
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/* map via ISR lock: */
>>>>>> +#define SPIN_DECLARE(lock) ISR_LOCK_MEMBER(lock)
>>>>>> +#define SPIN_INIT(lock, name) _ISR_lock_Initialize(lock, name)
>>>>>> +#define SPIN_LOCK(lock, level) _ISR_lock_Acquire_inline(lock, 
>>>>>> &level)
>>>>>> +#define SPIN_LOCK_IRQ(lock, level) 
>>>>>> _ISR_lock_ISR_disable_and_acquire(lock, &level)
>>>>>> +#define SPIN_UNLOCK(lock, level) _ISR_lock_Release_inline(lock, 
>>>>>> &level)
>>>>>> +#define SPIN_UNLOCK_IRQ(lock, level) 
>>>>>> _ISR_lock_Release_and_ISR_enable(lock, &level)
>>>>>> +#define SPIN_IRQFLAGS(k) ISR_lock_Context k
>>>>>> +#define SPIN_ISR_IRQFLAGS(k) SPIN_IRQFLAGS(k)
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you please use the rtems_interrupt_lock_*() API and not the 
>>>>> internal _ISR_lock_*() stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. I think the reason for this may come from that the inline 
>>>> equivalent. I will add a patch which adds inline macros to the 
>>>> rtems_interrupt_lock interface instead. I can't see any reason why 
>>>> that can not be supported?
>>>
>>> What do you mean with inline equivalent?
>> I mean we use _ISR_lock_Acquire_inline(lock, &level) from the ISR to 
>> avoid an extra function call. But there is only a 
>> rtems_interrupt_lock_acquire_isr() no 
>> rtems_interrupt_lock_acquire_INLINE_isr() which we would like to use.
>
> Ok, but does this extra function call really matter? If you think so, 
> then please add the *_inline variants to the rtems_interrupt_lock_* 
> API (with tests) and document it in the user manual.
Ok. I will add that patch afterwards, first I will fix our patches to 
use the correct existing macros. On SPARC it would be nice to avoid the 
extra window SAVE within the ISR.

Daniel



More information about the devel mailing list