On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 02:45:52PM +0200, Marc Hartmayer wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 04:49 PM +0200, Marc Hartmayer > <mhart...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > Use a worker pool for processing the events (e.g. udev, mdevctl config > > changes) > > and the initialization instead of a separate initThread and a > > mdevctl-thread. > > This has the large advantage that we can leverage the job API and now this > > thread pool is responsible to do all the "costly-work" and emitting the > > libvirt > > nodedev events. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhart...@linux.ibm.com> > > --- > > […snip…] > > > > > + /* must be initialized before trying to reconnect to all the running > > mdevs > > + * since there might occur some mdevctl monitor events that will be > > + * dispatched to the worker pool */ > > + priv->workerPool = virThreadPoolNewFull(1, 1, 0, > > nodeDeviceEventHandler, > > The more I think about the number of workers in this pool, the more I'm > convinced that it's (currently) important to use only _one_ worker (1 > udev thread <-> 1 worker), because otherwise we don't have any > guarantees that we comply to the following: > > order(udev_events) == order(libvirt nodedev events) > > And I guess we would like to fulfill this guarantee.
Yes, we need to preserve that ordering, otherwise the events become largely unusable. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@lists.libvirt.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.libvirt.org
