Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 4/7] qxl: make qxl_render_update async
Hi, >>> @@ -151,6 +171,7 @@ void qxl_render_update(PCIQXLDevice *qxl) >> >> dpy_update() call here. Calling that one isn't safe without grabbing >> the qemu lock. > > About dpy_update, discovered it the hard way. You mean I need the lock > for dpy_update or also before? Any qemu code should be considered thread-unsafe unless proven otherwise. On a quick scan I havn't noticed anything but the dpy_update() call. It makes sense to wrap the whole loop though, so you grab the lock only once. cheers, Gerd
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 4/7] qxl: make qxl_render_update async
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:10:38PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> > +void qxl_render_update_area_done(PCIQXLDevice *qxl, QXLCookie *cookie)
> > +{
>
> This is called from spice server thread context, correct?
>
> > -for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dirty); i++) {
> > +for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(data->dirty); i++) {
> > if (qemu_spice_rect_is_empty(dirty+i)) {
> > break;
> > }
> > @@ -151,6 +171,7 @@ void qxl_render_update(PCIQXLDevice *qxl)
>
> dpy_update() call here. Calling that one isn't safe without grabbing
> the qemu lock.
About dpy_update, discovered it the hard way. You mean I need the lock
for dpy_update or also before?
>
> > dirty[i].right - dirty[i].left,
> > dirty[i].bottom - dirty[i].top);
> > }
>
> > @@ -145,15 +145,19 @@ void qxl_spice_update_area(PCIQXLDevice *qxl,
> > uint32_t surface_id,
> > uint32_t clear_dirty_region,
> > qxl_async_io async, QXLCookie *cookie)
> > {
> > +struct QXLRect *area_copy;
> > if (async == QXL_SYNC) {
> > qxl->ssd.worker->update_area(qxl->ssd.worker, surface_id, area,
> > dirty_rects, num_dirty_rects, clear_dirty_region);
> > } else {
> > #if SPICE_INTERFACE_QXL_MINOR >= 1
> > if (cookie == NULL) {
> > +area_copy = g_malloc0(sizeof(*area_copy));
> > +memcpy(area_copy, area, sizeof(*area));
> > +area = area_copy;
> > cookie = qxl_cookie_new(QXL_COOKIE_TYPE_IO,
> > QXL_IO_UPDATE_AREA_ASYNC,
> > -0);
> > +(uint64_t)area_copy);
>
> I still think this is the wrong place.
Yes, I agree, I thought I removed this already, I'll fix.
>
> Also: How about making removing QXLCookie->data and adding a union
> instead? It's not like we have to transparently pass through a pointer
> for someone else, it's our own state data, so this extra indirection
> doesn't make sense at all.
ok, will do.
>
> cheers,
> Gerd
>
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 4/7] qxl: make qxl_render_update async
Hi,
> +void qxl_render_update_area_done(PCIQXLDevice *qxl, QXLCookie *cookie)
> +{
This is called from spice server thread context, correct?
> -for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dirty); i++) {
> +for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(data->dirty); i++) {
> if (qemu_spice_rect_is_empty(dirty+i)) {
> break;
> }
> @@ -151,6 +171,7 @@ void qxl_render_update(PCIQXLDevice *qxl)
dpy_update() call here. Calling that one isn't safe without grabbing
the qemu lock.
> dirty[i].right - dirty[i].left,
> dirty[i].bottom - dirty[i].top);
> }
> @@ -145,15 +145,19 @@ void qxl_spice_update_area(PCIQXLDevice *qxl, uint32_t
> surface_id,
> uint32_t clear_dirty_region,
> qxl_async_io async, QXLCookie *cookie)
> {
> +struct QXLRect *area_copy;
> if (async == QXL_SYNC) {
> qxl->ssd.worker->update_area(qxl->ssd.worker, surface_id, area,
> dirty_rects, num_dirty_rects, clear_dirty_region);
> } else {
> #if SPICE_INTERFACE_QXL_MINOR >= 1
> if (cookie == NULL) {
> +area_copy = g_malloc0(sizeof(*area_copy));
> +memcpy(area_copy, area, sizeof(*area));
> +area = area_copy;
> cookie = qxl_cookie_new(QXL_COOKIE_TYPE_IO,
> QXL_IO_UPDATE_AREA_ASYNC,
> -0);
> +(uint64_t)area_copy);
I still think this is the wrong place.
Also: How about making removing QXLCookie->data and adding a union
instead? It's not like we have to transparently pass through a pointer
for someone else, it's our own state data, so this extra indirection
doesn't make sense at all.
cheers,
Gerd
