Even though there are some problems, I am glad that the community is actively addressing them and that we are discussing how to improve in the future.
I can't offer advice on the spinlock question at this time because I haven't studied it, but when I ship my current project I should have more time to look into OS automated testing. I'd encourage others to think of ways to test the OS performance so that hard-to-find bugs can be exposed. Cheers, Nathan On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 2:16 PM Tiago Medicci Serrano < tiago.medi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks everyone for bringing light to this discussion! > > Well, I support reverting the introduced changes as in > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15767 and continue working on the > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15705 > > In summary, I prefer to use Option 1: > > *Option 1:* > > > > spin_lock: spin lock > > spin_lock_nopreempt: spin_lock + sched_lock > > spin_lock_irqsave: spin lock + irqsave > > spin_lock_irqsave_nopreempt: spin_lock + irq save + sched_lock > > > I liked ligd's proposal too: > > Based on option1, we add a check if someone called sem_post()/syslog()... > > then system ASSERT. Alert the people who should change their usage. > > And also the performance will be considered. > > > Best regards, > > Em qua., 5 de fev. de 2025 às 12:30, Sebastien Lorquet < > sebast...@lorquet.fr> > escreveu: > > > Hello, > > > > On 05/02/2025 15:43, chao an wrote: > > > I just want to solve them. I know it's difficult for every developer. > So > > if > > > you come across similar issues, you > > > don't need to spend too much time trying to solve them on your own. > > Yes, I understand very well, but fixing too fast can lead to bugs > > elsewhere. NuttX is a complex code base, we need coordinated efforts. We > > are a common project. > > If you dont get feedback you need patience until you get feedback, and > > you need to trigger more alarms. You cant just say "I didnt get the > > feedback I required, this is fine, lets push this anyway". > > > > > > On 05/02/2025 15:43, chao an wrote: > > > Agree with you. This is precisely why I sent the spin_lock issue to the > > > mailing list. It's to keep the semantics of > > > the existing API consistent with the previous ones, so as to prevent > > > individual developers and 3-party projects from > > > spending more time debugging problems caused by NuttX upgrades. > > > > Thank you for forwarding to the list. > > > > However for this particular issue, it would be dishonest for me to give > > advice because I just dont know. > > > > I hope the answers to your issues can be obtained from other > contributors. > > > > Sebastien > > > > >
