From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38072) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLu0U-0000f8-0E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:54:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLu0P-0005xM-VQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:54:45 -0400 Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([194.98.77.210]:48938) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLu0P-0005x1-Jm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:54:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB264D5.6070009@adacore.com> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:54:29 +0100 From: Fabien Chouteau MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4EB1640F.2090604@adacore.com> <4EB1796B.7050901@adacore.com> <4EB181C4.1090501@redhat.com> <4EB19F6B.8020907@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4EB19F6B.8020907@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Multiple instances of Qemu on Windows multicore List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 02/11/2011 20:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 11/02/2011 07:01 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 2 November 2011 17:45, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> The rest is always done in the iothread. The iothread will then >>> suspend/resume the VCPU thread around the unchaining, so what matters is (in >>> Unix parlance) signal-safety of the unchaining, not thread-safety. >> >> The unchaining is neither signal-safe nor thread-safe... > > Yeah, but there's nothing Windows-specific in that. That's very important, I don't see why it is different between Linux and Windows here. Also, why running all the threads on the same CPU would make the code thread-safe? -- Fabien Chouteau