Il 25/07/2013 14:32, Jan Kiszka ha scritto: > On 2013-07-25 14:21, Alex Bligh wrote: >> >> >> --On 25 July 2013 14:05:30 +0200 Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Alex Bligh's series gives each AioContext its own rt_clock. This avoids >>> the need for synchronization in the simple case. If we require timer >>> access between threads then we really need to synchronize. >>> >>> You pointed out in another email that vm_clock stops when the guest is >>> paused. I think we can find a solution for I/O throttling and QED, >>> which use vm_clock in the block layer. Note that block jobs already use >>> rt_clock. >> >> I would happily at a QEMUClock of each type to AioContext. They are after >> all pretty lightweight. > > What's the point of adding tones of QEMUClock instances? Considering > proper abstraction, how are they different for each AioContext? Will > they run against different clock sources, start/stop at different times? > If the answer is "they have different timer list", then fix this > incorrect abstraction.
s/QEMUClock/QEMUTimerList/ ? :) Paolo
