* [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Drop redundant resume_all_vcpus from main
@ 2012-08-20 18:11 Jan Kiszka
2012-08-21 7:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2012-08-20 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: qemu-devel; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini
VCPUs are either resumed directly via vm_start, after the incoming
migration is done, or when a continue command is issued. We don't need
the explicit resume before entering main_loop.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
---
I was adding nesting support to pause/resume_all_vcpus, and that
stumbled over the imbalance below.
vl.c | 1 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
index ebee867..231d3ab 100644
--- a/vl.c
+++ b/vl.c
@@ -3757,7 +3757,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
os_setup_post();
- resume_all_vcpus();
main_loop();
bdrv_close_all();
pause_all_vcpus();
--
1.7.3.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Drop redundant resume_all_vcpus from main
2012-08-20 18:11 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Drop redundant resume_all_vcpus from main Jan Kiszka
@ 2012-08-21 7:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-21 7:24 ` Jan Kiszka
2013-05-02 11:20 ` Jan Kiszka
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2012-08-21 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka; +Cc: qemu-devel
Il 20/08/2012 20:11, Jan Kiszka ha scritto:
> VCPUs are either resumed directly via vm_start, after the incoming
> migration is done, or when a continue command is issued. We don't need
> the explicit resume before entering main_loop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> ---
>
> I was adding nesting support to pause/resume_all_vcpus, and that
> stumbled over the imbalance below.
>
> vl.c | 1 -
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
> index ebee867..231d3ab 100644
> --- a/vl.c
> +++ b/vl.c
> @@ -3757,7 +3757,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>
> os_setup_post();
>
> - resume_all_vcpus();
> main_loop();
> bdrv_close_all();
> pause_all_vcpus();
>
Makes sense. Do we need a "main loop and similar" tree, or can that
tree be just uq/master now that qemu-kvm.c is dying?
Paolo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Drop redundant resume_all_vcpus from main
2012-08-21 7:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
@ 2012-08-21 7:24 ` Jan Kiszka
2013-05-02 11:20 ` Jan Kiszka
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2012-08-21 7:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Bonzini; +Cc: Marcelo Tosatti, qemu-devel, Avi Kivity
On 2012-08-21 09:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 20/08/2012 20:11, Jan Kiszka ha scritto:
>> VCPUs are either resumed directly via vm_start, after the incoming
>> migration is done, or when a continue command is issued. We don't need
>> the explicit resume before entering main_loop.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>> ---
>>
>> I was adding nesting support to pause/resume_all_vcpus, and that
>> stumbled over the imbalance below.
>>
>> vl.c | 1 -
>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
>> index ebee867..231d3ab 100644
>> --- a/vl.c
>> +++ b/vl.c
>> @@ -3757,7 +3757,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>>
>> os_setup_post();
>>
>> - resume_all_vcpus();
>> main_loop();
>> bdrv_close_all();
>> pause_all_vcpus();
>>
>
> Makes sense. Do we need a "main loop and similar" tree, or can that
> tree be just uq/master now that qemu-kvm.c is dying?
I'm not sure if this qualifies for uq/master. On the other hand, all the
efforts to refactor locking and make QEMU more scalable would like be
happy to have a home. Can be uq/master, but they will not only affect
KVM in the end.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Drop redundant resume_all_vcpus from main
2012-08-21 7:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-21 7:24 ` Jan Kiszka
@ 2013-05-02 11:20 ` Jan Kiszka
2013-05-02 11:55 ` Andreas Färber
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2013-05-02 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anthony Liguori; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, qemu-devel
On 2012-08-21 09:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 20/08/2012 20:11, Jan Kiszka ha scritto:
>> VCPUs are either resumed directly via vm_start, after the incoming
>> migration is done, or when a continue command is issued. We don't need
>> the explicit resume before entering main_loop.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>> ---
>>
>> I was adding nesting support to pause/resume_all_vcpus, and that
>> stumbled over the imbalance below.
>>
>> vl.c | 1 -
>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
>> index ebee867..231d3ab 100644
>> --- a/vl.c
>> +++ b/vl.c
>> @@ -3757,7 +3757,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>>
>> os_setup_post();
>>
>> - resume_all_vcpus();
>> main_loop();
>> bdrv_close_all();
>> pause_all_vcpus();
>>
>
> Makes sense. Do we need a "main loop and similar" tree, or can that
> tree be just uq/master now that qemu-kvm.c is dying?
>
> Paolo
>
Just noticed that this cleanup didn't make it into upstream back then.
Not truly trivial, but also not really risky.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Drop redundant resume_all_vcpus from main
2013-05-02 11:20 ` Jan Kiszka
@ 2013-05-02 11:55 ` Andreas Färber
2013-05-02 12:06 ` Jan Kiszka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Färber @ 2013-05-02 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, Anthony Liguori, qemu-devel
Am 02.05.2013 13:20, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> On 2012-08-21 09:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 20/08/2012 20:11, Jan Kiszka ha scritto:
>>> VCPUs are either resumed directly via vm_start, after the incoming
>>> migration is done, or when a continue command is issued. We don't need
>>> the explicit resume before entering main_loop.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I was adding nesting support to pause/resume_all_vcpus, and that
>>> stumbled over the imbalance below.
>>>
>>> vl.c | 1 -
>>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
>>> index ebee867..231d3ab 100644
>>> --- a/vl.c
>>> +++ b/vl.c
>>> @@ -3757,7 +3757,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>>>
>>> os_setup_post();
>>>
>>> - resume_all_vcpus();
>>> main_loop();
>>> bdrv_close_all();
>>> pause_all_vcpus();
>>>
>>
>> Makes sense. Do we need a "main loop and similar" tree, or can that
>> tree be just uq/master now that qemu-kvm.c is dying?
>
> Just noticed that this cleanup didn't make it into upstream back then.
> Not truly trivial, but also not really risky.
Since I happened to touch that CPU function just yesterday and Paolo and
me seem to agree the call is superfluous, applying it to qom-cpu:
https://github.com/afaerber/qemu-cpu/commits/qom-cpu
Thanks,
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Drop redundant resume_all_vcpus from main
2013-05-02 11:55 ` Andreas Färber
@ 2013-05-02 12:06 ` Jan Kiszka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2013-05-02 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Färber; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, Anthony Liguori, qemu-devel
On 2013-05-02 13:55, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 02.05.2013 13:20, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
>> On 2012-08-21 09:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Il 20/08/2012 20:11, Jan Kiszka ha scritto:
>>>> VCPUs are either resumed directly via vm_start, after the incoming
>>>> migration is done, or when a continue command is issued. We don't need
>>>> the explicit resume before entering main_loop.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> I was adding nesting support to pause/resume_all_vcpus, and that
>>>> stumbled over the imbalance below.
>>>>
>>>> vl.c | 1 -
>>>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
>>>> index ebee867..231d3ab 100644
>>>> --- a/vl.c
>>>> +++ b/vl.c
>>>> @@ -3757,7 +3757,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>>>>
>>>> os_setup_post();
>>>>
>>>> - resume_all_vcpus();
>>>> main_loop();
>>>> bdrv_close_all();
>>>> pause_all_vcpus();
>>>>
>>>
>>> Makes sense. Do we need a "main loop and similar" tree, or can that
>>> tree be just uq/master now that qemu-kvm.c is dying?
>>
>> Just noticed that this cleanup didn't make it into upstream back then.
>> Not truly trivial, but also not really risky.
>
> Since I happened to touch that CPU function just yesterday and Paolo and
> me seem to agree the call is superfluous, applying it to qom-cpu:
>
> https://github.com/afaerber/qemu-cpu/commits/qom-cpu
Perfect!
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-05-02 12:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-08-20 18:11 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Drop redundant resume_all_vcpus from main Jan Kiszka
2012-08-21 7:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-21 7:24 ` Jan Kiszka
2013-05-02 11:20 ` Jan Kiszka
2013-05-02 11:55 ` Andreas Färber
2013-05-02 12:06 ` Jan Kiszka
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.