On 17 Feb 2014, at 16:13, Mike Day wrote:
>> 1. You seem to be removing the use of the active_timers_lock and replacing
>> it by
>> rcu (fine). However, you seem to have left the qemu_mutex_destroy in
>> timerlist_free, and left the mutex in QEMUTimerList. Any reason why we
>> need both?
>
> 1. You seem to be removing the use of the active_timers_lock and replacing it
> by
>rcu (fine). However, you seem to have left the qemu_mutex_destroy in
>timerlist_free, and left the mutex in QEMUTimerList. Any reason why we
> need both?
>
I responded incorrectly to this yesterday. We
Mike,
On 15 Feb 2014, at 20:33, Mike Day wrote:
>>
>> 2. You have introduced rcu not only to protect active_timers, the list of
>> active timers within one timerlist, but also to protect (I think)
>> the list of timerlists, as evidenced by the fact you have
>> reclaim_timer_list as well as
Alex Bligh writes:
> Some comments:
Thanks for the thorough review!
> 1. You seem to be removing the use of the active_timers_lock and replacing it
> by
>rcu (fine). However, you seem to have left the qemu_mutex_destroy in
>timerlist_free, and left the mutex in QEMUTimerList. Any reason
Mike,
Some comments:
1. You seem to be removing the use of the active_timers_lock and replacing it by
rcu (fine). However, you seem to have left the qemu_mutex_destroy in
timerlist_free, and left the mutex in QEMUTimerList. Any reason why we need
both?
2. You have introduced rcu not onl
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:06, Mike Day wrote:
>> I think that, more than contention, it tries to reduce the cost of
>> synchronization primitives, especially the locking and unlocking of the list
>> around the invocation of timer callbacks.
>
> Yes, the assumption is that the active timers are a rea
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:25 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 13/02/2014 10:11, Alex Bligh ha scritto:
>>
>> I'll certainly have a look through this. However before I do, what
>> problem is this trying to solve? Do we think there is possibility
>> of contention on the active timers lock? I used to th
Il 13/02/2014 10:11, Alex Bligh ha scritto:
Mike,
On 12 Feb 2014, at 19:09, Mike Day wrote:
Allow readers to use RCU when reading Qemu timer lists. Applies to
Paolo Bonzini's RCU branch, https://github.com/bonzini/qemu/tree/rcu.
This patch is for comment and review only. The rcu branch needs
Mike,
On 12 Feb 2014, at 19:09, Mike Day wrote:
> Allow readers to use RCU when reading Qemu timer lists. Applies to
> Paolo Bonzini's RCU branch, https://github.com/bonzini/qemu/tree/rcu.
>
> This patch is for comment and review only. The rcu branch needs to be
> rebased on upstream.
I'll cer
Allow readers to use RCU when reading Qemu timer lists. Applies to
Paolo Bonzini's RCU branch, https://github.com/bonzini/qemu/tree/rcu.
This patch is for comment and review only. The rcu branch needs to be
rebased on upstream.
Signed-off-by: Mike Day
---
include/qemu/timer.h | 9 +-
qem
10 matches
Mail list logo
