On 01/05/2011 06:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/04/2011 03:39 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 08:17:26AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/03/2011 04:01 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/03/2011 11:46 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
at least in kvm mode, the qemu_fair_mutex see
On 01/04/2011 03:39 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 08:17:26AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/03/2011 04:01 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/03/2011 11:46 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
at least in kvm mode, the qemu_fair_mutex seems to have lost its
function o
On 01/04/2011 05:43 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
The fact that the iothread drops the global lock during sleep is a
detail that shouldn't affect correctness. The IO thread is
absolutely allowed to run for arbitrary periods of time without
dropping the qemu mutex.
No, it's not, since it will st
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 08:17:26AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 04:01 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >On 01/03/2011 11:46 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>at least in kvm mode, the qemu_fair_mutex seems to have lost its
> >>function of balancing qemu_global_mutex access between the
On 01/04/2011 09:12 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/04/2011 04:55 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
When the TCG thread, it needs to let the IO thread run for at least
one iteration. Coordinating the execution of the IO thread such
that it's guaranteed to run at least once and then having it drop
th
On 01/04/2011 04:55 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
When the TCG thread, it needs to let the IO thread run for at least
one iteration. Coordinating the execution of the IO thread such
that it's guaranteed to run at least once and then having it drop
the qemu mutex long enough for the TCG thread
On 01/04/2011 08:27 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/04/2011 04:17 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/03/2011 04:01 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/03/2011 11:46 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
at least in kvm mode, the qemu_fair_mutex seems to have lost its
function of balancing qemu_global_mutex access betw
On 01/04/2011 04:17 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/03/2011 04:01 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/03/2011 11:46 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
at least in kvm mode, the qemu_fair_mutex seems to have lost its
function of balancing qemu_global_mutex access between the io-thread
and
vcpus. It's now onl
On 01/03/2011 04:01 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/03/2011 11:46 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
at least in kvm mode, the qemu_fair_mutex seems to have lost its
function of balancing qemu_global_mutex access between the io-thread and
vcpus. It's now only taken by the latter, isn't it?
This and the fac
On 01/03/2011 12:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Am 03.01.2011 11:01, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 11:46 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> at least in kvm mode, the qemu_fair_mutex seems to have lost its
>> function of balancing qemu_global_mutex access between the io-thread and
>> vcpus. It'
Am 03.01.2011 11:01, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 11:46 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> at least in kvm mode, the qemu_fair_mutex seems to have lost its
>> function of balancing qemu_global_mutex access between the io-thread and
>> vcpus. It's now only taken by the latter, isn't it?
>>
>> T
On 01/03/2011 11:46 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
at least in kvm mode, the qemu_fair_mutex seems to have lost its
function of balancing qemu_global_mutex access between the io-thread and
vcpus. It's now only taken by the latter, isn't it?
This and the fact that qemu-kvm does not use this kind of l
Hi,
at least in kvm mode, the qemu_fair_mutex seems to have lost its
function of balancing qemu_global_mutex access between the io-thread and
vcpus. It's now only taken by the latter, isn't it?
This and the fact that qemu-kvm does not use this kind of lock made me
wonder what its role is and if i
13 matches
Mail list logo
