From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51451) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLcuO-00059w-TR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:39:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLcuO-0004nB-0L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:39:20 -0400 Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([194.98.77.210]:47505) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLcuN-0004iJ-SI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:39:19 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D41CB0227 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:39:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IYi9aaRUZHzC for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:38:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.10.1.88] (pompomgalli.act-europe.fr [10.10.1.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D2FCCB0222 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:38:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4EB1640F.2090604@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:38:55 +0100 From: Fabien Chouteau MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Multiple instances of Qemu on Windows multicore List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" Hello fellow Qemu aficionados, On Windows, Qemu sets the affinity mask in order to run all thread on CPU0, with this comment in the code (os-win32.c:182): /* Note: cpu_interrupt() is currently not SMP safe, so we force QEMU to run on a single CPU */ This was added by Fabrice Bellard in 2006 (git show a8e5ac33d). I can't find/understand any reason for this CPU affinity restriction. So I'm asking to the experts: 1 - Is this comment still applicable? 2 - If yes, what is the problem with cpu_interrupt on SMP? 3 - Why is this different on Linux? This is a real drawback, especially to run automated tests. Thanks in advance, -- Fabien Chouteau