From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LvHQA-0003vG-IL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:45:54 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LvHQ5-0003ta-Am
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:45:53 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41021 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LvHQ5-0003tT-2I
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:45:49 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:46075)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mtosatti@redhat.com>) id 1LvHQ4-0000b3-Kh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:45:48 -0400
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:45:24 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20090418204524.GA16311@amt.cnet>
References: <20090407195126.467365249@localhost.localdomain>
	<20090407195443.121795529@localhost.localdomain>
	<49E88C9B.2050205@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49E88C9B.2050205@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [patch 05/11] qemu: separate thread for io
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 09:05:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> #ifndef CONFIG_IO_THREAD, doesn't main_loop_break need to do cpu_interrupt?

Yes, also about the previous comments. Will be fixed by bisectable
series as suggested.

>> +static void qemu_wait_io_event(CPUState *env, int timeout)
>> +{
>> +    if (timeout)
>> +        while (!tcg_has_work(env))
>> +            qemu_cond_timedwait(&halt_cond, &qemu_global_mutex, timeout);
>>   
>
> What's the point of having a timeout?

I don't think there's much other than honouring the behaviour 
of the non-io-thread version. Now, I believe icount breaks
if you don't honour it.

>> +
>> +static void qemu_signal_lock(unsigned int msecs)
>> +{
>> +    qemu_mutex_lock(&qemu_fair_mutex);
>> +
>> +    while (qemu_mutex_trylock(&qemu_global_mutex)) {
>> +        qemu_thread_signal(&cpus_thread, SIGUSR1);
>> +        if (!qemu_mutex_timedlock(&qemu_global_mutex, msecs))
>> +            break;
>> +    }
>> +    qemu_mutex_unlock(&qemu_fair_mutex);
>> +}
>> +
>>   
>
> Now's a good time to attempt to move a lot of the main loop stuff into a  
> separate file.  We can do it after the IO thread series or you can make  
> it part of the IO thread series.

Sure.