From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N0f7w-0007U8-Ka
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:37:36 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N0f7s-0007O3-Q7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:37:36 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58588 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N0f7s-0007Nl-IC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:37:32 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:22611)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1N0f7s-0007k0-0x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:37:32 -0400
Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9LHbVCZ027281
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:37:31 -0400
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:35:16 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20091021173516.GA25112@redhat.com>
References: <20091008203740.GA20727@redhat.com>
	<1256063981.27918.6.camel@blaa> <4ADE0809.2050500@redhat.com>
	<20091021154234.GA24913@redhat.com> <4ADF44D6.5040207@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4ADF44D6.5040207@redhat.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] qemu: work around for "posix-aio-compat"
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 07:28:54PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> I've uploaded them here:
>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/mst/
>> you can't see them in mirrors yet but will be able to soon when
>> kernel.org mirroring system catches them.
>
> There is no difference in optimizations except that here:
>
>         for (i = 0; i < aiocb->aio_niov && count; ++i) {
>
> one of the two versions actually does "count && i < aiocb->aio_niov" due  
> to hashing vagaries.  This is irrelevant anyway.  Same inlining, same  
> loop optimization decisions, same everything else.  So a GCC bug can be  
> ruled out, IMHO.
>
> The only difference, as someone already suspected, is the padding---the  
> sigset is placed between the top of the frame and the other variables,  
> which may hide an overrun.  This is quite amazing for a function that  
> has no arrays, but still is the only evidence.
>
> I suggest trying to make the sigset_t static, since that generates  
> exactly the same code as the "nohang" case, and exactly the same stack  
> layout as the "hang" case.  The next obvious step would be placing a  
> watchpoint somewhere.

Yes, but where?

> Cheers,
>
> Paolo