On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Fri 11 Sep 2015 11:14:33 AM CEST, Fam Zheng wrote:
>
> >> > Another advantage for bdrv_aio_poll() is, in main loop we will not
> >> > need a separate AioContext in changes like:
> >> >
> >> >
On Fri 11 Sep 2015 11:14:33 AM CEST, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> > Another advantage for bdrv_aio_poll() is, in main loop we will not
>> > need a separate AioContext in changes like:
>> >
>> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/514968/
>> >
>> > Because nested aio_poll will
On Fri, 09/11 11:36, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Fri 11 Sep 2015 11:14:33 AM CEST, Fam Zheng wrote:
>
> >> > Another advantage for bdrv_aio_poll() is, in main loop we will not
> >> > need a separate AioContext in changes like:
> >> >
> >> >
On Fri, 09/11 10:15, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 09/09/2015 05:22, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > Another advantage for bdrv_aio_poll() is, in main loop we will not need
> > a separate AioContext in changes like:
> >
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/514968/
> >
> > Because nested aio_poll will
On 11/09/2015 11:36, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> > > > Because nested aio_poll will automatically be limited to only
> > > > process block layer events. My idea is to eventually let main loop
> > > > use aio_poll
> > >
> > > That would be a step back. Using GSource is useful because it lets
> > >
On 09/09/2015 05:22, Fam Zheng wrote:
> Another advantage for bdrv_aio_poll() is, in main loop we will not need
> a separate AioContext in changes like:
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/514968/
>
> Because nested aio_poll will automatically be limited to only process block
> layer events.
On Wed, 07/29 14:03, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 29/07/2015 13:53, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> > Yes, though I think you'd end up reverting patches 10 and 11 in the end.
> > We will add outer disable/enable pairs to prevent another threads's aio_poll
> > from sneaking in between bdrv_aio_poll calls,
On Wed, 07/29 14:03, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 29/07/2015 13:53, Fam Zheng wrote:
Yes, though I think you'd end up reverting patches 10 and 11 in the end.
We will add outer disable/enable pairs to prevent another threads's aio_poll
from sneaking in between bdrv_aio_poll calls, but we
On 29/07/2015 12:57, Fam Zheng wrote:
On Wed, 07/29 09:37, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 29/07/2015 06:42, Fam Zheng wrote:
@@ -2613,6 +2613,8 @@ bool bdrv_aio_poll(AioContext *ctx, bool blocking)
{
bool ret;
+aio_disable_clients(ctx, AIO_CLIENT_DATAPLANE | AIO_CLIENT_NBD_SERVER);
On Wed, 07/29 09:37, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 29/07/2015 06:42, Fam Zheng wrote:
@@ -2613,6 +2613,8 @@ bool bdrv_aio_poll(AioContext *ctx, bool blocking)
{
bool ret;
+aio_disable_clients(ctx, AIO_CLIENT_DATAPLANE | AIO_CLIENT_NBD_SERVER);
ret = aio_poll(ctx,
On 29/07/2015 13:53, Fam Zheng wrote:
Yes, though I think you'd end up reverting patches 10 and 11 in the end.
We will add outer disable/enable pairs to prevent another threads's aio_poll
from sneaking in between bdrv_aio_poll calls, but we needn't obsolete
bdrv_aio_poll() because of that -
11 matches
Mail list logo