Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> 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;
> }
>
> ?
>
Yes. The loop was a (perhaps premature) optimization that is now
totally unnecessary, unless I'm missing something quite large.
Oh. There used to be a bug where we didn't check for a pending signal
before the first guest entry, so this would add a lot of latency
(effectively making the bug window much larger). That was only closed
in 2.6.24 (by 7e66f350).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
