From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55279) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eKRKr-0002WI-13 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:05:19 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eKRKh-0005EX-MP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:05:13 -0500 References: <20171129144956.11409-1-famz@redhat.com> <20171129172546.GG3753@localhost.localdomain> <20171130020359.GB16237@lemon> <20171130103135.GA4039@localhost.localdomain> <20171130143430.GA24067@lemon> <20171130151038.GE4039@localhost.localdomain> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <02559c3a-0de0-df8c-4324-d326715b1f86@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:04:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171130151038.GE4039@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/9] block: Rewrite block drain begin/end List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf , Fam Zheng Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, jcody@redhat.com, Max Reitz , Stefan Hajnoczi On 30/11/2017 16:10, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Yes, I agree, but that (using CoMutex around graph change) requires >> everything, especially the defer_to_main_loop_bh, runs in a coroutine >> context, which is exactly what I mean by "introducing 'ubiquitous >> coroutines'", because currently we don't have them. > Is it hard to do, though? Instead of using a BH to switch to the main > loop and outside of coroutine context, you could use aio_co_schedule() > and yield, which would leave you in the main loop, but still in > coroutine context. Not that I think of, but just aio_co_schedule wouldn't work, because "the coroutine must have yielded unless ctx is the context in which the coroutine is running (i.e. the value of qemu_get_current_aio_context() from the coroutine itself)". So you'd have to use a bottom half that calls aio_co_schedule. But that would work. Paolo > Would this have any bad side effects I'm not aware of?