All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Umesh Deshpande <udeshpan@redhat.com>
Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] fine grained qemu_mutex locking for migration
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:39:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E36746A.6040901@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f4440591ca4843adff3a588864199ace81e5f11c.1311971938.git.udeshpan@redhat.com>

On 07/29/2011 10:57 PM, Umesh Deshpande wrote:
> +    qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
>
>       while (s->state == MIG_STATE_ACTIVE) {
>           if (migrate_fd_check_expire()) {
> +            qemu_mutex_lock_iothread();
>               buffered_rate_tick(s->file);
> +            qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
>           }
>
>           if (s->state != MIG_STATE_ACTIVE) {
> @@ -392,12 +396,11 @@ void migrate_fd_begin(void *arg)
>
>           if (s->callback) {
>               migrate_fd_wait_for_unfreeze(s);
> +            qemu_mutex_lock_iothread();
>               s->callback(s);
> +            qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
>           }
>       }
> -
> -out:
> -    qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();

I think it's clearer to unlock explicitly around the waiting points (see 
review of 1/3).  In fact, I think you're working around the busy wait by 
accessing s->state outside the lock, right?  I don't think this is 
provably safe; moving the knowledge of the thread entirely within 
buffered_file.c also fixes this, because then the lifetimes of the 
thread and the QEMUFile are much clearer.

Thanks,

Paolo

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Umesh Deshpande <udeshpan@redhat.com>
Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] fine grained qemu_mutex locking for migration
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:39:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E36746A.6040901@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f4440591ca4843adff3a588864199ace81e5f11c.1311971938.git.udeshpan@redhat.com>

On 07/29/2011 10:57 PM, Umesh Deshpande wrote:
> +    qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
>
>       while (s->state == MIG_STATE_ACTIVE) {
>           if (migrate_fd_check_expire()) {
> +            qemu_mutex_lock_iothread();
>               buffered_rate_tick(s->file);
> +            qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
>           }
>
>           if (s->state != MIG_STATE_ACTIVE) {
> @@ -392,12 +396,11 @@ void migrate_fd_begin(void *arg)
>
>           if (s->callback) {
>               migrate_fd_wait_for_unfreeze(s);
> +            qemu_mutex_lock_iothread();
>               s->callback(s);
> +            qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
>           }
>       }
> -
> -out:
> -    qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();

I think it's clearer to unlock explicitly around the waiting points (see 
review of 1/3).  In fact, I think you're working around the busy wait by 
accessing s->state outside the lock, right?  I don't think this is 
provably safe; moving the knowledge of the thread entirely within 
buffered_file.c also fixes this, because then the lifetimes of the 
thread and the QEMUFile are much clearer.

Thanks,

Paolo

  reply	other threads:[~2011-08-01  9:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-07-29 20:57 [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] separate thread for VM migration Umesh Deshpande
2011-07-29 20:57 ` [Qemu-devel] " Umesh Deshpande
2011-07-29 20:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] " Umesh Deshpande
2011-07-29 20:57   ` [Qemu-devel] " Umesh Deshpande
2011-08-01  9:37   ` Paolo Bonzini
2011-08-01  9:37     ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini
2011-08-01 21:00     ` Umesh Deshpande
2011-08-01 21:00       ` [Qemu-devel] " Umesh Deshpande
2011-08-02  7:44       ` Paolo Bonzini
2011-08-02  7:44         ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini
2011-07-29 20:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] fine grained qemu_mutex locking for migration Umesh Deshpande
2011-07-29 20:57   ` [Qemu-devel] " Umesh Deshpande
2011-08-01  9:39   ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2011-08-01  9:39     ` Paolo Bonzini
2011-08-02 16:30   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2011-08-02 16:30     ` [Qemu-devel] " Marcelo Tosatti
2011-07-29 20:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] Per memslot dirty bitmap Umesh Deshpande
2011-07-29 20:57   ` [Qemu-devel] " Umesh Deshpande
2011-08-02 16:29   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2011-08-02 16:29     ` [Qemu-devel] " Marcelo Tosatti
2011-08-01  9:41 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] separate thread for VM migration shawn che
2011-08-01  9:41   ` [Qemu-devel] " shawn che

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4E36746A.6040901@redhat.com \
    --to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=quintela@redhat.com \
    --cc=udeshpan@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.