From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33475) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUG66-0002Oa-NB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:43:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUG65-0003Om-E6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:43:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56110) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUG65-0003Ob-5i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:43:53 -0400 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3MChpio018400 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:43:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:43:50 -0400 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20130422084350.17b2941b@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <517503E0.1080906@redhat.com> References: <1366346658-4680-1-git-send-email-akong@redhat.com> <5172BD04.2050504@redhat.com> <20130422073252.GC1938@t430s.nay.redhat.com> <20130422080935.GA29975@t430s.nay.redhat.com> <517503E0.1080906@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] monitor: intervally send down events to guest in hold time List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Amos Kong , kraxel@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:33:20 +0200 Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 22/04/2013 10:09, Amos Kong ha scritto: > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 03:32:52PM +0800, Amos Kong wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:06:28AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > >>> On 04/18/2013 10:44 PM, Amos Kong wrote: > >>>> (qemu) sendkey a 1000 > >>>> > >>>> Current design is that qemu only send one down event to guest, > >>>> and delay sometime, then send one up event. In this case, only > >>>> key can be identified by guest. > >>>> > >>>> This patch changed qemu to intervally send down events to guest > >>>> in the hold time, the interval is 100ms. > >>> > >>> I don't like this. > >> > >>> When you hold a key for a long time on bare metal, > >>> there is only one down and one up event; > >> > >> Really? I do check events by 'showkey', the output of showkey is not the > >> events sent from keyboard? > >> > >> # showkey -s (show keys' scancode) > >> I can always see many down scancodes, and one up scancode. > >> It's same when I disable / enable auto-repeat mode in system. > >> > >> In the real host / vnc guest/ sdl guest, hold one key, many down > >> events can be checked by showkey. > > > > # watch cat /proc/interrupts > > CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 > > 1: 1692 40309 1462 1795 IO-APIC-edge i8042 > > > > hit a botton without long-time holding, interrupt count increased 2. > > hit a botton with long-time holding, interrupt count increased a lot (more than 2) > > You're right. The typematic delay/rate is implemented within the i8042 > keyboard microcontroller (QEMU does not implement that register). > > It is possible that software ignores interrupts for a key that is > already down, and reimplements autorepeat in software, but your patch is > correct. But isn't this patch the equivalent of repeatedly pressing and releasing a key? Shouldn't this be implemented at a lower-level layer like the input subsystem? Say, the input subsystem detects a key is being hold and asks the keyboard emulation driver to keep sending interrupts for that key like Amos described?