From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32796)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@redhat.com>) id 1WIKhc-0006a8-ST
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:17:58 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@redhat.com>) id 1WIKhW-0006wG-Sy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:17:52 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26847)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@redhat.com>) id 1WIKhW-0006wC-Kq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:17:46 -0500
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:17:38 +0100
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20140225161738.GD2374@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
References: <1392994280-9675-1-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com>
	<1392994280-9675-2-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com>
	<53076E46.3020109@redhat.com>
	<20140224155359.GH23185@stefanha-thinkpad.hitronhub.home>
	<530B77CD.9020502@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <530B77CD.9020502@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] iothread: stash thread ID away
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, "Shergill,
	Gurinder" <gurinder.shergill@hp.com>, "Vinod,
	Chegu" <chegu_vinod@hp.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 05:48:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 24/02/2014 16:53, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
> >>>> >+    qemu_cond_destroy(&init_info.init_done_cond);
> >>>> >+    qemu_mutex_destroy(&init_info.init_done_lock);
> >>>
> >>> Destroying the mutex here is racy.  You need to keep it until the
> >>> iothread is destroyed.
> >I don't think so:
> >
> >qemu_cond_signal() is called with the mutex held.  Therefore, our
> >qemu_cond_wait() followed by qemu_mutex_unlock() will only complete once
> >the thread has released the mutex.
> >
> >The thread will never touch the mutex again so it is safe to destroy it.
> >There is no race condition.
> 
> Could qemu_mutex_destroy run while the other thread has already
> released the main thread, but before it returns?  As far as I know,
> the only time when it is safe to destroy the "last" synchronization
> object (in this case the mutex is the last, the condvar is not) is
> after pthread_join.

For the default mutex type (PTHREAD_MUTEX_TIMED_NP) glibc looks safe to
me.  The other mutex types are trickier and I haven't audited them.

Anyway, I can just move the mutex into the IOThread object and destroy
it after the thread is joined :).

Stefan