Hi, Sangho and Seokyeon I've made a patch for qemu that uses WaitForMultipleObjects directly, if no objections then I'll send it upstream.
P.S: I'll make a patch for glib a bit later, my inet connection is really slow today, so cloning latest sources takes forever... On 04/11/2014 10:36 AM, Stanislav Vorobiov wrote: > Hi, Sangho and Seokyeon > > See below > > On 04/11/2014 06:43 AM, Sangho Park wrote: >> Hi, Stanislav >> >> >> >> Thanks for feedback. >> >> I've tested the time precision of WaitForMultipleObject() even if >> dwMilliseconds < 10. I used qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_HOST) and it is >> very precise in my windows box. After some more tests in other windows >> boxes, we can reasonably assume that the >> current win32 g_poll implementation in glib is suck, (the g_poll() >> implementation is still same at the glib 2.40) and this 10msec hack may be >> pushed to tizen. > Yeah, this is in fact a bug in glib, when we call g_poll we mean "wait at > least this timeout and if there's no I/O available, return", but current > glib is implemented like "just test if I/O is available and return > immediately", i.e. we don't care if on windows wait is not as precise as on > linux, the "at least" contract must > be respected, even if it means waiting 15ms or more. So I guess we need to > send a patch to glib upstream as well. > >> >> >> >> I'm afraid that the qemu_poll_ns() and the hack make something to wait >> longer and, as a result, decrease the responsiveness of guest and qemu. >> Then, qemu_poll_ns() need to be re-implemented by using win32 api. > Yes, 100% agreed. BTW, since the timers in QEMU are now so precise, they even > added this: > > prctl(PR_SET_TIMERSLACK, 1, 0, 0, 0); > > to linux's qemu-timer.c, this makes select/poll calls as precise as possible. > There's no alternative on windows for this AFAIK, so I guess calling > WaitForMultipleObjects with the exact timeout is > the best we can do... > > I guess I'll create these 2 patches then, for glib and qemu, I'll post them > here on the list for review and then we can send > them out if no objections... > >> >> >> >> ------- *Original Message* ------- >> >> *Sender* : Stanislav Vorobiov<[email protected]> Expert >> Engineer/SRR-Tizen S/W Group/Samsung Electronics >> >> *Date* : Apr 11, 2014 01:41 (GMT+09:00) >> >> *Title* : Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >> >> >> >> Hi, Sangho >> >> I've tested with both 3.4 and 3.12 kernel and I think that performance is >> exactly as good as in 1.6! >> Since timers were refactored they now use more precise timeouts and that >> causes problems on windows because of g_poll as you said, true. >> >> Thank you very much for helping with this, you've done amazing job! >> >> P.S: Since this is qemu bug, this fix should probably go upstream, but I'm >> not sure about the value of 10 either, m.b. >> we can just change qemu's qemu_poll_ns to just use WaitForMultipleObjects on >> windows and pass whatever timeout the caller passed without >> these (timeout >= 10) hacks... But that has to be tried out first... >> >> And once again, thanks a lot! >> >> On 04/10/2014 07:32 PM, 박상호 wrote: >>> Hi, Stanislav and Seokyeon. >>> >>> >>> >>> At first, thank you for information and a nice tool. >>> >>> >>> >>> I thought that aio_ctx_prepare() and aio_ctx_check() are called too >>> enormousely many times. And I found that almost every g_poll() in >>> qemu_poll_ns() is immediately returned even though the timeout is not zero. >>> >>> >>> >>> In glib/gpoll.c of glib-2.43.3, >>> >>> 325 /* If not, and we have a significant timeout, poll again with >>> 326 * timeout then. Note that this will return indication for only >>> 327 * one event, or only for messages. We ignore timeouts less than >>> 328 * ten milliseconds as they are mostly pointless on Windows, the >>> 329 * MsgWaitForMultipleObjectsEx() call will timeout right away >>> 330 * anyway. >>> 331 */ >>> 332 if (retval == 0 && (timeout == INFINITE || timeout >= 10)) >>> 333 retval = poll_rest (poll_msgs, handles, nhandles, fds, nfds, >>> timeout); >>> it does not call poll when timeout < 10. So the enormouse g_poll() calls >>> are really polling resources. >>> >>> >>> >>> I patched qemu_poll_ns() and I feel better. >>> >>> However, I'm not sure that it is as good as 1.6. Please check the patch. >>> >>> >>> >>> I need to check the comment of glib - i.e Is really the precision of >>> WaitForMultipleObject is less than 10 milleseconds. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>> >>> *Sender* : Stanislav VorobiovExpert Engineer/SRR-Tizen S/W Group/삼성전자 >>> >>> *Date* : 2014-04-10 16:23 (GMT+09:00) >>> >>> *Title* : Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, Sangho >>> >>> Thanks for the info! BTW, gprof has one drawback - it can't profile >>> multithreaded applications, i.e. it gives wrong results. I recommend using >>> Intel VTune Amplifier XE, it's very useful tool, you can use it without >>> recompiling qemu, it'll show you everything - stack traces, profiles, it >>> even >>> shows SMP friendlyness. >>> >>> I've also done some more digging into this aio thing. Here's what I found, >>> in main-loop.c:os_host_main_loop_wait (win32 dependent code) >>> if I replace: >>> >>> select_ret = select(nfds + 1, &rfds, &wfds, &xfds, &tv0); >>> >>> with: >>> >>> qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread(); >>> select_ret = select(nfds + 1, &rfds, &wfds, &xfds, &tv0); >>> qemu_mutex_lock_iothread(); >>> >>> then the problem almost entirely cured for portio (vga), but for mmio it's >>> still present (vigs). So, the problem here is a livelock >>> between main thread and io thread. I'm currently studying the mmio part, >>> i.e. we probably need to stick these >>> qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread()/qemu_mutex_lock_iothread() somewhere else. >>> >>> Another thing that looks strange to me is the fact that adding >>> qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread()/qemu_mutex_lock_iothread() >>> makes so much difference, the thing is 'tv0' in that select is always 0, >>> this means "poll and return immediately" and this select >>> actually returns immediately, so why does unlock/lock makes so much >>> difference ? I mean, if tv was > 0 then yes, main thread waits >>> on selects, io thread livelocks on mutex, this makes sense, but not when tv >>> is 0... I'm also studying this... >>> >>> On 04/10/2014 10:48 AM, 박상호 wrote: >>>> Hi, Seokyeon and Stanislav >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I profiled the qemu in windows by using gprof (-pg). I run the emulator >>>> until I show the menu screen and then shutdown. It takes about 70 seconds. >>>> Please check the attached result. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - Top ranks >>>> >>>> Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. >>>> % cumulative self self total >>>> time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name >>>> 16.48 1.05 1.05 >>>> maru_vga_draw_line32_32 >>>> 11.62 1.79 0.74 __udivdi3 >>>> 6.75 2.22 0.43 >>>> os_host_main_loop_wait >>>> 5.65 2.58 0.36 aio_ctx_prepare >>>> 5.34 2.92 0.34 111422776 0.00 0.00 qemu_mutex_unlock >>>> 5.34 3.26 0.34 aio_ctx_check >>>> 5.18 3.59 0.33 8507037 0.00 0.00 slirp_pollfds_poll >>>> 3.77 3.83 0.24 8506993 0.00 0.00 slirp_pollfds_fill >>>> 3.14 4.03 0.20 76396706 0.00 0.00 timerlist_deadline_ns >>>> 2.67 4.20 0.17 25465512 0.00 0.00 >>>> timerlistgroup_deadline_ns >>>> 2.51 4.36 0.16 __umoddi3 >>>> 2.35 4.51 0.15 8506948 0.00 0.00 main_loop_wait >>>> 2.20 4.65 0.14 68485894 0.00 0.00 qemu_clock_get_ns >>>> 2.04 4.78 0.13 8507043 0.00 0.00 >>>> qemu_clock_run_all_timers >>>> 1.88 4.90 0.12 103165614 0.00 0.00 qemu_mutex_lock >>>> 1.88 5.02 0.12 25664993 0.00 0.00 timerlist_run_timers >>>> >>>> Many functions related with aio and timerlist are too frequently as you >>>> have expected. >>>> >>>> According to the call graph (from 1714 lines), >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------- >>>> 42 aio_poll [94] >>>> 8506969 main_loop_wait [8] >>>> 0.36 0.23 8458958/33329095 aio_ctx_check [4] >>>> 0.36 0.23 8499543/33329095 aio_ctx_prepare [3] >>>> [16] 2.7 0.17 0.00 25465512 timerlistgroup_deadline_ns > >>>> 76396706 timerlist_deadline_ns > >>>> ----------------------------------------------- >>>> main_loop_wait(), aio_ctx_check() and aio_ctx_prepare() call >>>> timerlistgroup_deadline_ns() almouse evenly. >>>> >>>> aio_ctx_check() and aio_ctx_prepare() are used for GSourceFuncs and we can >>>> reasonably suspect the aio implementation for win32. >>>> >>>> main_loop_wait() also calls excessively timerlistgroup_deadline_ns(). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have tested it in my ubuntu box. I run the emulator until I show the >>>> menu screen and then shutdown. It takes about 20 seconds. Just compare the >>>> number of calls. (25465512 per 70 seconds vs 78696 per 20 seconds ) >>>> >>>> Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. >>>> % cumulative self self total >>>> time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name >>>> 9.09 0.04 0.04 642 0.06 0.08 vga_update_display >>>> 6.82 0.07 0.03 32540 0.00 0.00 main_loop_wait >>>> 6.82 0.10 0.03 30701 0.00 0.00 phys_page_set_level >>>> 4.55 0.12 0.02 5883501 0.00 0.00 >>>> address_space_translate_in >>>> 4.55 0.14 0.02 5883382 0.00 0.00 >>>> address_space_translate >>>> 4.55 0.16 0.02 189067 0.00 0.00 cpu_get_clock_locked >>>> 4.55 0.18 0.02 831 0.02 0.02 >>>> qcow2_check_metadata_overl >>>> 4.55 0.20 0.02 aio_ctx_prepare >>>> 2.27 0.21 0.01 5952765 0.00 0.00 phys_page_find >>>> 2.27 0.22 0.01 5835718 0.00 0.00 qemu_get_ram_block >>>> 2.27 0.23 0.01 1177955 0.00 0.00 qemu_mutex_lock >>>> ... >>>> >>>> 0.00 0.44 0.00 236252 0.00 0.00 timerlist_deadline_ns >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------- >>>> 0.00 0.00 42/78696 aio_poll [70] >>>> 0.00 0.00 19116/78696 aio_ctx_check [34] >>>> 0.00 0.00 26975/78696 aio_ctx_prepare [21] >>>> 0.00 0.00 32563/78696 main_loop_wait [5] >>>> [60] 2.1 0.00 0.01 78696 timerlistgroup_deadline_ns >>>> [60] >>>> 0.00 0.01 236252/236252 timerlist_deadline_ns [59] >>>> ----------------------------------------------- >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In summary, the aio implementation for win32 may be the reason and, >>>> however, I still don't know exactly. I need to think about the result more >>>> and check the aio implementation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>> >>>> *Sender* : 박상호수석/파트장/Core파트/에스코어 >>>> >>>> *Date* : 2014-04-09 16:46 (GMT+09:00) >>>> >>>> *Title* : Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, Seokyeon Hwang >>>> >>>> I’m afraid that the same performance degradation can happen in qemu 2.0 >>>> that will be released at Apr. 10. (http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/2.0) >>>> >>>> I think that we need to dig more this issue until next week. J >>>> >>>> *From:*SeokYeon Hwang [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 09, 2014 3:11 PM >>>> *To:* Stanislav Vorobiov; [email protected]; 박상호 >>>> *Subject:* Re: Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows >>>> performance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> @ stanislav, >>>> >>>> I see. You didn't want to apply W/A patch. >>>> >>>> And... yes, we should study win32-aio.c in more detail. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I didn't test 3.12 kernel on Windows host yet. I should try it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> @ sangho and all, >>>> >>>> How about your opinion? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>> >>>> *Sender*: Stanislav Vorobiov> Expert Engineer/SRR-Tizen S/W Group/삼성전자 >>>> >>>> *Date*: 2014-04-08 19:09 (GMT+09:00) >>>> >>>> *Title*: Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, Seokyeon >>>> >>>>> Yesterday, I looked up the related code and tested it. >>>>> But, I am not quite sure about the changed timer code in QEMU. >>>>> >>>>> the problem is disappeared by Stanislav's patch. However, I think adding >>>>> dummy notifier from timerlist registration is better than checking >>>>> use_icount according to the current changed timer logic. I'm not 100% >>>>> sure about this. >>>> I've tried the patch, it looks like the fix is almost the same as mine in >>>> terms of performance, i.e. it makes things better, but not as good as in >>>> 1.6. And the difference >>>> is big, with 1.6 performance was much better. IMHO we didn't fix the >>>> problem yet and this patch or mine shouldn't be applied. I'll try to look >>>> at this problem again taking >>>> this patch into account, I really hope that we'll find the right solution >>>> for this... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If anyone knows about the following, please answer me. >>>>> >>>>> 1. Main-loop registers aio_notify to use own timers. Why do 6 timerlist, >>>>> which are created by init_clocks() function in CPU thread and IO thread, >>>>> eventually call aio_notify? aio_notify is called because there is no >>>>> notifier registration explicitly. >>>>> >>>>> 2. The same above timer logic is performed in linux and Windows, but it >>>>> is slow in Windows. What is the major cause of performance decline in >>>>> Windows? >>>> It might be that aio logic broke for windows, i.e. misuse of IoCompletion >>>> api or something, m.b. we should study win32-aio.c in more detail ? >>>> >>>> Also, I noticed one more thing, it may be related to this problem. mobile >>>> image doesn't boot with kernel 3.12 at all on windows, it hangs somewhere >>>> in >>>> network initialization (not 100% sure), that place also causes a little >>>> delay with 3.4 kernel, but with 3.12 it never gets pass it. I've tried >>>> this both without and >>>> with this patch. Also, Tizen IVI doesn't have this problem, it boots fine. >>>> >>>> On 04/08/2014 11:19 AM, SeokYeon Hwang wrote: >>>>> Sorry, my attachment was missing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>>> >>>>> *Sender* : 황석연 수석보/VM파트/에스코어 >>>>> >>>>> *Date* : 2014-04-08 16:11 (GMT+09:00) >>>>> >>>>> *Title* : Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, everyone. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for late reply. >>>>> >>>>> Yesterday, I looked up the related code and tested it. >>>>> But, I am not quite sure about the changed timer code in QEMU. >>>>> >>>>> the problem is disappeared by Stanislav's patch. However, I think adding >>>>> dummy notifier from timerlist registration is better than checking >>>>> use_icount according to the current changed timer logic. I'm not 100% >>>>> sure about this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If anyone knows about the following, please answer me. >>>>> >>>>> 1. Main-loop registers aio_notify to use own timers. Why do 6 timerlist, >>>>> which are created by init_clocks() function in CPU thread and IO thread, >>>>> eventually call aio_notify? aio_notify is called because there is no >>>>> notifier registration explicitly. >>>>> >>>>> 2. The same above timer logic is performed in linux and Windows, but it >>>>> is slow in Windows. What is the major cause of performance decline in >>>>> Windows? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll apply Stanislav's patch or the "dummy_notifier patch" attached as >>>>> workaround If I cannot figure it out until this week. >>>>> If you have any comment about this, please let me know. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ============================================================================================ >>>>> >>>>> *Sender*: Seokyeon Hwang> >>>>> >>>>> *Date*: 2014-03-14 10:35 (GMT+09:00) >>>>> >>>>> *Title*: Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Great job, thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I should test with "vanilla QEMU 1.6" on windows. >>>>> >>>>> I think it could be our mis-use QEMU timer API, or some other mistake on >>>>> tizen specific devices. >>>>> >>>>> I will test it until next week. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>>> >>>>> *Sender*: Stanislav Vorobiov> Expert Engineer/SRR-Tizen S/W Group/삼성전자 >>>>> >>>>> *Date*: 2014-03-14 02:22 (GMT+09:00) >>>>> >>>>> *Title*: Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was able to make some progress on this issue, it looks like this commit: >>>>> >>>>> b1bbfe72ec1ebf302d97f886cc646466c0abd679 aio / timers: On timer >>>>> modification, qemu_notify or aio_notify >>>>> >>>>> causes the degradation, I'm attaching the patch that reverts changes in >>>>> this commit. Although emulator is >>>>> performing better with this patch, it's still not as good as it was with >>>>> qemu 1.6. Also, this patch >>>>> is a dirty hack of course, it reverts generic code that works fine on >>>>> linux and mac os x, but the problem is on windows >>>>> only. >>>>> >>>>> Any comments are welcome... >>>>> >>>>> On 03/12/2014 02:59 PM, Stanislav Vorobiov wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Just for information, Intel VTune Amplifier XE for windows works great >>>>>> with MinGW, it's capable of gathering >>>>>> correct profiles and symbol naming is ok, you don't even need to build >>>>>> qemu with some special options. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm using it now to find the cause of this performance degradation, m.b. >>>>>> someone else will find it useful as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 01/16/2014 06:38 AM, 황석연wrote: >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @ stanislav >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are right. The performance profiling in Windows is very hard job. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually I prefer using profiling tool to analysing sources, trial and >>>>>>> error, in Windows - MinGW. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @ all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If anyone knows good profiling tool in Windows - MinGW, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let us know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sender* : Stanislav VorobiovLeading Engineer/SRR-Mobile S/W Group/삼성전자 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Date* : 2014-01-15 14:54 (GMT+09:00) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Title* : Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, Syeon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, but unfortunately it's hard to say where exactly is that problem. >>>>>>> It would be great to do some profiling, but on MinGW it seems >>>>>>> not an easy task. In MinGW there're no things such as valgrind or perf >>>>>>> and all existing windows profiling tools require .pdb database, >>>>>>> which means they can only profile executables built by visual studio. >>>>>>> After some struggling I've managed to run qemu with gprof, which >>>>>>> gave me output with correct symbol naming, but unfortunately the output >>>>>>> is still not usefull, m.b. it's because gprof is known to not >>>>>>> work correctly with multithreaded applications. Do you have suggestions >>>>>>> how can we profile qemu on windows ? Are there any good tools >>>>>>> you know about ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 01/15/2014 08:35 AM, SeokYeon Hwang wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can reproduce performance degradation on Windows. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We should figure out why. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I thinks it could be related with timer logic changes on 1.7.0. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sender* : Stanislav VorobiovLeading Engineer/SRR-Mobile S/W Group/삼성전자 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Date* : 2014-01-13 14:52 (GMT+09:00) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Title* : Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows >>>>>>>> performance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, Syeon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's not necessarily related to HAXM, the thing is slowdown is >>>>>>>> significant, e.g. home screen renders about >>>>>>>> 5 times longer than before, home screen scrolling is like 2-3 fps. >>>>>>>> Other graphics apps are also slow. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 01/13/2014 06:19 AM, 황석연wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, stanislav, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> According to my memory, there is no significant changes related with >>>>>>>>> HAXM. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I will re-check about it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sender* : Stanislav VorobiovLeading Engineer/SRR-Mobile S/W >>>>>>>>> Group/삼성전자 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Date* : 2014-01-10 22:23 (GMT+09:00) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Title* : Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows >>>>>>>>> performance >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also, this happens both with maru VGA and VIGS >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 01/10/2014 01:06 PM, Stanislav Vorobiov wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, all >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> After updating tizen branch today (with 1.7.0 merge) I've noticed >>>>>>>>>> performance degradation on windows 7 64-bit with HAXM-enabled, >>>>>>>>>> is this some known issue ? Were there significant changes to HAXM in >>>>>>>>>> 1.7.0 merge ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 01/08/2014 07:59 AM, 황석연wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A QEMU 1.7.0 stable version has been merged into tizen branch. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Sender* : 황석연책임/VM파트/에스코어 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Date* : 2014-01-03 13:16 (GMT+09:00) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Title* : [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Merge qemu stable-1.7.0 on tizen >>>>>>>>>>> emulator >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We has been tested "Tizen Emulator" with tizen_qemu_1.7 branch, and >>>>>>>>>>> it works well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So we planned to merge it to tizen branch on next Tuesday - 7, Jan. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you have any opinion, please let me know. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *And please subscribe "Dev" mailing list on "tizen.org".* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *I don't add any other recipients after this mail.* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> @ John, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please forward this mail to IVI maintainer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 박상호 올림 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sangho Park (Ph.D) >>>> >>>> Principal Engineer, >>>> >>>> Core Part, OS Lab, >>>> >>>> S-Core >>>> >>>> Tel) +82-70-7125-5039 >>>> >>>> Mobile) +82-10-2546-9871 >>>> >>>> E-mail) [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 박상호 올림 >>> >>> >>> >>> Sangho Park (Ph.D) >>> >>> Principal Engineer, >>> >>> Core Part, OS Lab, >>> >>> S-Core >>> >>> Tel) +82-70-7125-5039 >>> >>> Mobile) +82-10-2546-9871 >>> >>> E-mail) [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 박상호 올림 >> >> >> >> Sangho Park (Ph.D) >> >> Principal Engineer, >> >> Core Part, OS Lab, >> >> S-Core >> >> Tel) +82-70-7125-5039 >> >> Mobile) +82-10-2546-9871 >> >> E-mail) [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev >
>From 42d4cb1bd1f74a4c2eaf489bcc54e10ae9c098c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sangho Park <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:50:52 +0400 Subject: [PATCH] timer: fix qemu_poll_ns early timeout on windows g_poll has a problem on windows when using timeouts < 10ms, in glib/gpoll.c: /* If not, and we have a significant timeout, poll again with * timeout then. Note that this will return indication for only * one event, or only for messages. We ignore timeouts less than * ten milliseconds as they are mostly pointless on Windows, the * MsgWaitForMultipleObjectsEx() call will timeout right away * anyway. */ if (retval == 0 && (timeout == INFINITE || timeout >= 10)) retval = poll_rest (poll_msgs, handles, nhandles, fds, nfds, timeout); so whenever g_poll is called with timeout < 10ms it does a quick poll instead of wait, this causes significant performance degradation of qemu, thus we should use WaitForMultipleObjectsEx directly Signed-off-by: Stanislav Vorobiov <[email protected]> --- qemu-timer.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 90 insertions(+) diff --git a/qemu-timer.c b/qemu-timer.c index e15ce47..15a9778 100644 --- a/qemu-timer.c +++ b/qemu-timer.c @@ -315,6 +315,96 @@ int qemu_poll_ns(GPollFD *fds, guint nfds, int64_t timeout) ts.tv_nsec = timeout % 1000000000LL; return ppoll((struct pollfd *)fds, nfds, &ts, NULL); } +#elif defined(_WIN32) + guint i; + HANDLE handles[MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS]; + gint nhandles = 0; + int num_completed = 0; + gint timeout_ms = qemu_timeout_ns_to_ms(timeout); + + for (i = 0; i < nfds; i++) { + gint j; + + if (fds[i].fd <= 0) { + continue; + } + + /* don't add same handle several times + */ + for (j = 0; j < nhandles; j++) { + if (handles[j] == (HANDLE)fds[i].fd) { + break; + } + } + + if (j == nhandles) { + if (nhandles == MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS) { + fprintf(stderr, "Too many handles to wait for!\n"); + break; + } else { + handles[nhandles++] = (HANDLE)fds[i].fd; + } + } + } + + for (i = 0; i < nfds; ++i) { + fds[i].revents = 0; + } + + if (timeout_ms == -1) { + timeout_ms = INFINITE; + } + + if (nhandles == 0) { + if (timeout_ms == INFINITE) { + return -1; + } else { + SleepEx(timeout_ms, TRUE); + return 0; + } + } + + while (1) { + DWORD res; + gint j; + + res = WaitForMultipleObjectsEx(nhandles, handles, FALSE, + timeout_ms, TRUE); + + if (res == WAIT_FAILED) { + for (i = 0; i < nfds; ++i) { + fds[i].revents = 0; + } + + return -1; + } else if ((res == WAIT_TIMEOUT) || (res == WAIT_IO_COMPLETION) || + ((int)res < WAIT_OBJECT_0) || + (res >= (WAIT_OBJECT_0 + nhandles))) { + break; + } + + for (i = 0; i < nfds; ++i) { + if (handles[res - WAIT_OBJECT_0] == (HANDLE)fds[i].fd) { + fds[i].revents = fds[i].events; + } + } + + ++num_completed; + + if ((timeout_ms != 0) || (nhandles <= 1)) { + break; + } + + /* if no timeout and polling several handles, + * poll the rest of them + */ + for (j = res - WAIT_OBJECT_0 + 1; j < nhandles; j++) { + handles[j - 1] = handles[j]; + } + --nhandles; + } + + return num_completed; #else return g_poll(fds, nfds, qemu_timeout_ns_to_ms(timeout)); #endif -- 1.7.9.5
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
