comparison between lock approaches

This commit is contained in:
Per Lindgren 2021-10-20 09:57:10 +02:00
parent 705b2fd62d
commit b349a32f3d

View file

@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
//! examples/mutlilock_vs_lockall.rs
#![deny(unsafe_code)]
#![deny(warnings)]
#![no_main]
#![no_std]
use panic_semihosting as _;
#[rtic::app(device = lm3s6965, dispatchers = [GPIOA])]
mod app {
use cortex_m_semihosting::{debug, hprintln};
#[shared]
struct Shared {
shared1: u32,
shared2: u32,
shared3: u32,
}
#[local]
struct Local {}
#[init]
fn init(_: init::Context) -> (Shared, Local, init::Monotonics) {
locks::spawn().unwrap();
(
Shared {
shared1: 0,
shared2: 0,
shared3: 0,
},
Local {},
init::Monotonics(),
)
}
// when omitted priority is assumed to be `1`
#[task(shared = [shared1, shared2, shared3])]
fn locks(mut c: locks::Context) {
// lock-all structure
c.shared.lock(|s| {
*s.shared1 += 1;
*s.shared2 += 2;
*s.shared3 += 3;
hprintln!(
"Multiple locks, s1: {}, s2: {}, s3: {}",
s.shared1,
s.shared2,
s.shared3
)
.ok();
});
// lock-all destructure
c.shared.lock(
|locks::Shared {
shared1,
shared2,
shared3,
}| {
**shared1 += 1;
**shared2 += 2;
**shared3 += 3;
hprintln!(
"Multiple locks, s1: {}, s2: {}, s3: {}",
shared1,
shared2,
shared3
)
.ok();
},
);
// nested multi-lock
let s1 = c.shared.shared1;
let s2 = c.shared.shared2;
let s3 = c.shared.shared3;
(s1, s2, s3).lock(|s1, s2, s3| {
*s1 += 1;
*s2 += 2;
*s3 += 3;
hprintln!("Multiple locks, s1: {}, s2: {}, s3: {}", s1, s2, s3).ok();
});
debug::exit(debug::EXIT_SUCCESS); // Exit QEMU simulator
}
}