[ECOS] Thoughts of semaphore filesystem device to would behave like sock etpair() and/or pipe().
Wed Jan 28 14:50:00 GMT 2004
> Hi Nick(all)-
> Thanks for the quick responses....
> Ok, I like the idea of creating a special "semaphore" filesystem.
> My background brings me here with more from the applications
> development and thus the posix layer...not much driver experience;
> but always wanting to learn. So we may want to persue this. For
> now, I have the work around completed; using two full blown INET
> sockets via 'localhost'...yuck!
> Although, your assertion that the primary requirement is to unblock
> select() is true, in addition we need to use the "tickle" file
> descriptor (that the target thread is select()ing on), to pass
> control data, i.e. we send about 32 bytes of "command/context" data
> so the target threads knows 'why' it is being unblocked (not just
> that he needs to unblock). Therefore, the ideal solution would look
> something like a pipe where this command data could reside with the
> device until it is read by the one target thread (the one blocking
> on select()).
You could always pass the reason for the wakeup via shared global
> You had indicated that having data buffered within this device is
> not optimal; and I understand why. However, if we could have this
> and have it configurable, this could be a very powerful device
> (realative to the specific use case described above). In this way,
> client threads (threads writing to the 'tickle' device) could write
> their command data without blocking (until the device buffer is
> full; or returns with errno set to EWOULDBLOCK if the write side is
> configured as non-blocking and the buffer is full).
You are talking here about a full FIFO filesystem. I was hoping to
avoid the need to implement that to achieve your goals. If such a
thing were to be implemented then it must be done properly.
> The buffer size configuration could be defaulted to zero; for those
> who do not need to send data and/or who do not want to pay the price
> for the allocation/space. This configuration could be a 'static'
> ecos.ecc/package config option. Going for the "dream solution", a
> special ioctl() command could be defined that would allow dynamic
> runtime modification of this buffer size. This would be useful for
> those occations where several instances of this device are
> created/realized but each use has a different size requirement.
I think we could only have one instance of the device, and a
configuration-time buffer size would be best to allow the memory usage
of the system to be deterministic.
> By the way, I would like to be able to allocate a non-predetermined
> number of these devices. In otherwords, like pipe() or
> socketpair(), I need to be able to open multiple instances of this
> type of device...up to the max allowed file descriptors. Each
> open()'ed instance has it's own semaphore count and optional data
The main problem with that approach is that it would require use of
the memory allocator package. For most of the basic systems in eCos we
prefer to avoid mandating the use of malloc() since not all platforms
are suitable for it, and not all applications want to pay the price or
have the available memory. However, a config option that allows it to
switch from a static memory implementation to a malloc based one
would be acceptable. The RAM filesystem has this, for example.
> Again, I haven't begun to look into the implementation details of an
> eCos driver. I've been working at getting our linux/vxworks code
> ported... I'm not sure if what I have outlined above is reasonalable
> or even do-able... but I tried to better clarify our needs.
It is certainly reasonable and doable, but you are going to have to do
it yourself. I'm happy to answer questions about the FILEIO subsystem
and other issues, and make design suggestions.
> Does this sound reasonable to you? If so, would this be something
> that the eCos community would support development on. In
> otherwords, I'm not sure how things get done...I'm not sure if you
> would want me doing it...or when I would(or could ever) get it done.
> If I were to attempt this, would it be something that you (or the
> eCos community) would help support me on doing?
Andrew has given a good outline of what you should do. Getting the
overall design right is important, that way it can be included into
the main source tree with minimal fuss.
Nick Garnett eCos Kernel Architect
http://www.ecoscentric.com The eCos and RedBoot experts
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss
More information about the Ecos-discuss