On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:27:25AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 19/06/2013 00:26, mdroth ha scritto:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 09:20:26PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 18/06/2013 17:14, mdroth ha scritto:
> >>> Could we possibly simplify this by introducing a recursive mutex that we
> >
Il 19/06/2013 00:26, mdroth ha scritto:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 09:20:26PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 18/06/2013 17:14, mdroth ha scritto:
>>> Could we possibly simplify this by introducing a recursive mutex that we
>>> could use to protect the whole list loop and hold even during the cb?
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 09:20:26PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/06/2013 17:14, mdroth ha scritto:
> > Could we possibly simplify this by introducing a recursive mutex that we
> > could use to protect the whole list loop and hold even during the cb?
>
> If it is possible, we should avoid rec
Il 18/06/2013 17:14, mdroth ha scritto:
> Could we possibly simplify this by introducing a recursive mutex that we
> could use to protect the whole list loop and hold even during the cb?
If it is possible, we should avoid recursive locks. It makes impossible
to establish a lock hierarchy. For ex
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:14:38AM -0500, mdroth wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 07:21:21PM +0800, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> > BH will be used outside big lock, so introduce lock to protect
> > between the writers, ie, bh's adders and deleter.
> > Note that the lock only affects the writers and bh's c
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 07:21:21PM +0800, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> BH will be used outside big lock, so introduce lock to protect
> between the writers, ie, bh's adders and deleter.
> Note that the lock only affects the writers and bh's callback does
> not take this extra lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:19:40AM +0800, liu ping fan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 07:21:21PM +0800, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> > Why lock bh_lock before assigning bh->next? Could you lock the mutex
> > here and then drop the smp_wmb()
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 07:21:21PM +0800, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
>> @@ -47,8 +47,12 @@ QEMUBH *aio_bh_new(AioContext *ctx, QEMUBHFunc *cb, void
>> *opaque)
>> bh->ctx = ctx;
>> bh->cb = cb;
>> bh->opaque = opaque;
>> +qemu
Il 17/06/2013 17:28, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
>> > +qemu_mutex_lock(&ctx->bh_lock);
>> > bh->next = ctx->first_bh;
>> > +/* Make sure the memebers ready before putting bh into list */
> s/memebers/members/
>
>> > +smp_wmb();
> Why lock bh_lock before assigning bh->next? Could
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 07:21:21PM +0800, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> @@ -47,8 +47,12 @@ QEMUBH *aio_bh_new(AioContext *ctx, QEMUBHFunc *cb, void
> *opaque)
> bh->ctx = ctx;
> bh->cb = cb;
> bh->opaque = opaque;
> +qemu_mutex_lock(&ctx->bh_lock);
> bh->next = ctx->first_bh;
> +
10 matches
Mail list logo
