From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: segmentation fault in qemu-kvm-0.14.0
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:20:58 +0100
Message-ID: <4D77629A.204@redhat.com>
References: <2640D58E-2101-47FA-99B6-28815666651E@dlh.net> <4D772E4C.6020604@web.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Peter Lieven <pl@dlh.net>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:39071 "EHLO
	mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751758Ab1CILVJ (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 9 Mar 2011 06:21:09 -0500
Received: by qwd7 with SMTP id 7so277525qwd.19
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 03:21:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D772E4C.6020604@web.de>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 03/09/2011 08:37 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> It's probably worth validating that the iothread lock is
> always held when qemu_set_fd_handler2 is invoked to confirm this race
> theory, adding something like
>
> assert(pthread_mutex_trylock(&qemu_mutex) != 0);
> (that's for qemu-kvm only)

Alternatively, iohandlers could be a(nother) good place to start 
introducing fine-grained locks or rwlocks.

Paolo