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

[Daniel Hellstrom]

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