On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:54:13PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 01/04/2010 02:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 02:24:53PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> On 12/21/2009 02:09 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> >>>> Make the timer subsystem register its own bottom half instead of >>>> placing the bottom half code in the heart of the main loop. To >>>> test if an alarm timer is pending, just check if the bottom half is >>>> scheduled. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini<pbonz...@redhat.com> >>>> >>> I'm not a huge fan of this for a couple reasons. The first is that it >>> introduces a subtle semantic change. Previously, timers always ran >>> before bottom halves whereas after this change, timers may run after >>> some bottoms halves but before others. While this should be okay in >>> principle, in practice, I'm sure it'll introduce regressions. I'd be >>> very surprised if cris wasn't affected by this. >>> >>> But more importantly, I think timer dispatch needs to be part of the >>> select loop. malc has a git tree that replaces host alarm timers with >>> select() timeouts. >>> >> Where is that tree? >> > > http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/malc.git mtloop
Don't seem to see anything there. malc? >> IMO we need that, I am not sure all code is as signal-safe >> as it should be. At least crashes that I saw with winxp install >> seem to be related to signal handling. >> > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori
