On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> Add a chain node to the scheduler node to decouple the thread and
> scheduler nodes. It is now possible to enqueue a thread in a thread
> wait queue and use its scheduler node at the same for other threads,
> e.g. a resouce owner.
> ---
> cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/scheduler.h | 19 ++-
> cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/schedulerimpl.h | 22 ++
> .../include/rtems/score/schedulerprioritysmpimpl.h | 48 ++--
> .../score/include/rtems/score/schedulersimplesmp.h | 8 +-
> cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/schedulersmp.h | 5 +
> .../score/include/rtems/score/schedulersmpimpl.h | 251
> +++++++++++---------
> cpukit/score/src/schedulerpriorityaffinitysmp.c | 175 +++++++-------
> cpukit/score/src/schedulerprioritysmp.c | 43 ++--
> cpukit/score/src/schedulersimplesmp.c | 98 +++++----
> cpukit/score/src/schedulersmpstartidle.c | 2 +-
> 10 files changed, 392 insertions(+), 279 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/scheduler.h
> b/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/scheduler.h
> index 542e4ae..918c6df 100644
> --- a/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/scheduler.h
> +++ b/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/scheduler.h
> @@ -165,7 +165,24 @@ struct Scheduler_Control {
> * @brief Scheduler node for per-thread data.
> */
> struct Scheduler_Node {
> - /* No fields yet */
> +#if defined(RTEMS_SMP)
> + /**
> + * @brief Chain node for usage in various scheduler data structures.
> + *
> + * Strictly this is the wrong place for this field since the data
> structures
> + * to manage scheduler nodes belong to the particular scheduler
> + * implementation. Currently all SMP scheduler implementations use chains.
> + * The node is here to simplify things, just like the object node in the
> + * thread control block. It may be replaced with a union to add a
> red-black
> + * tree node in the future.
> + */
> + Chain_Node Node;
> +
> + /**
> + * @brief The thread owning this node.
> + */
> + Thread_Control *owner;
> +#endif
> };
>
> /**
> diff --git a/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/schedulerimpl.h
> b/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/schedulerimpl.h
> index 364c658..391a8d7 100644
> --- a/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/schedulerimpl.h
> +++ b/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/schedulerimpl.h
> @@ -652,6 +652,28 @@ RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE Scheduler_Node *_Scheduler_Node_get(
> return the_thread->Scheduler.node;
> }
>
> +RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE void _Scheduler_Node_do_initialize(
I'd just use "Node_initialize".
> diff --git a/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/schedulerprioritysmpimpl.h
> b/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/schedulerprioritysmpimpl.h
> index d3e2106..8671035 100644
> --- a/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/schedulerprioritysmpimpl.h
> +++ b/cpukit/score/include/rtems/score/schedulerprioritysmpimpl.h
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> #include <rtems/score/schedulerprioritysmp.h>
> #include <rtems/score/schedulerpriorityimpl.h>
> #include <rtems/score/schedulersimpleimpl.h>
> +#include <rtems/score/schedulersmpimpl.h>
>
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> extern "C" {
> @@ -50,26 +51,25 @@ static inline Scheduler_priority_SMP_Node
> *_Scheduler_priority_SMP_Node_get(
> return (Scheduler_priority_SMP_Node *) _Scheduler_Node_get( thread );
> }
>
> -static Scheduler_priority_SMP_Node *_Scheduler_priority_SMP_Node_downcast(
> - Scheduler_Node *node
> -)
> +static inline Scheduler_priority_SMP_Node *
> +_Scheduler_priority_SMP_Node_downcast( Scheduler_Node *node )
> {
> return (Scheduler_priority_SMP_Node *) node;
> }
>
Is there a reason not to just cast it where it is used?
[...]
> static inline void _Scheduler_priority_SMP_Insert_ready_lifo(
> Scheduler_Context *context,
> - Thread_Control *thread
> + Scheduler_Node *thread
> )
It's no longer a thread, I'd change the parameter name. Repeated a few times.
> diff --git a/cpukit/score/src/schedulerpriorityaffinitysmp.c
> b/cpukit/score/src/schedulerpriorityaffinitysmp.c
> index f5ab8cf..f1dcacd 100644
> --- a/cpukit/score/src/schedulerpriorityaffinitysmp.c
> +++ b/cpukit/score/src/schedulerpriorityaffinitysmp.c
[...]
> @@ -134,28 +137,34 @@ static inline void
> _Scheduler_SMP_Allocate_processor_exact(
> * the highest ready thread must have affinity such that it can
> * be executed on the victim's processor.
> */
> -static Thread_Control *_Scheduler_priority_affinity_SMP_Get_highest_ready(
> +static Scheduler_Node *_Scheduler_priority_affinity_SMP_Get_highest_ready(
> Scheduler_Context *context,
> - Thread_Control *victim
> + Scheduler_Node *victim
> )
> {
> - Scheduler_priority_SMP_Context *self =
> + Scheduler_priority_SMP_Context *self =
> _Scheduler_priority_SMP_Get_self( context );
> - Priority_Control index;
> - Thread_Control *highest = NULL;
> - int victim_cpu;
> + Priority_Control index;
> + Scheduler_Node *highest = NULL;
> + Thread_Control *victim_thread;
> + uint32_t victim_cpu_index;
> + Scheduler_priority_affinity_SMP_Node *node;
>
> /*
> * This is done when we need to check if reevaluations are needed.
> */
> if ( victim == NULL ) {
> - return _Scheduler_priority_Ready_queue_first(
> + node = (Scheduler_priority_affinity_SMP_Node *)
> + _Scheduler_priority_Ready_queue_first(
> &self->Bit_map,
> &self->Ready[ 0 ]
> );
> +
> + return &node->Base.Base.Base;
This Base.Base.Base is quite awkward and not at all clear what it
means. Shouldn't this be using a downcast() function? Repeated a few
times.
-Gedare
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
