Avi Kivity wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Having both kvm_eat_signal and kvm_eat_signals makes the code harder to >> read. Moreover, given the single caller of kvm_eat_signals, there is no >> real reason to keep it in a separate function. >> >> > > Given that with the iothread we spend very little time processing > signals in vcpu threads, maybe it's better to drop the loop completely. > The common case is zero or one pending signals. The uncommon case of > two or more pending signals will be handled by the KVM_RUN ioctl > returning immediately with -EINTR (i.e. in the outer loop). >
You mean
static void kvm_main_loop_wait(CPUState *env, int timeout)
{
pthread_mutex_unlock(&qemu_mutex);
kvm_eat_signal(env, timeout);
pthread_mutex_lock(&qemu_mutex);
cpu_single_env = env;
vcpu_info[env->cpu_index].signalled = 0;
}
?
Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
