From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] queue_work proposal
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:32:45 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A9FA95D.60404@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090903111505.GO30340@mothafucka.localdomain>
On 09/03/2009 02:15 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> on_vcpu() and queue_work() are fundamentally different (yes, I see the
>> wait parameter, and I think there should be two separate functions for
>> such different behaviours).
>>
> Therefore, the name change. The exact on_vcpu behaviour, however, can be
> implemented ontop of queue_work().
Will there be any use for asynchronous queue_work()?
It's a dangerous API.
> Instead of doing that, I opted for using it
> implicitly inside kvm_vcpu_ioctl, to guarantee that vcpu ioctls will always run
> on the right thread context.
I think it's reasonable to demand that whoever calls kvm_vcpu_ioctl()
know what they are doing (and they'll get surprising results if it
switches threads implicitly).
> Looking at qemu-kvm, it seems that there are a couple
> of other functions that are not ioctls, and need on_vcpu semantics. Using them becomes
> a simple matter of doing:
>
> queue_work(env, func, data, 1);
>
> I really don't see the big difference you point. They are both there to force a specific
> function to be executed in the right thread context.
>
One of them is synchronous, meaning the data can live on stack and no
special synchronization is needed, while the other is synchronous,
meaning explicit memory management and end-of-work synchronization is
needed.
>> Why do we need queue_work() in the first place?
>>
> To force a function to be executed in the correct thread context.
> Why do we need on_vcpu in the first place?
>
on_vcpu() is a subset of queue_work(). I meant, why to we need the
extra functionality?
>> Is there a way to limit the queue size to prevent overflow?
>>
> It can be, but it gets awkward. What do you do when you want a function needs to execute
> on another thread, but you can't? Block it? Refuse?
>
What if the thread is busy? You grow the queue to an unbounded size?
> We could pick one, but I see no need. The vast majority of work will never get queued,
> since we'll be in the right context already.
>
A more powerful API comes with increased responsibilities.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-03 11:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-03 0:52 [Qemu-devel] [RFC] queue_work proposal Glauber Costa
2009-09-03 7:36 ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini
2009-09-03 11:07 ` Glauber Costa
2009-09-03 8:45 ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2009-09-03 11:15 ` Glauber Costa
2009-09-03 11:32 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2009-09-03 12:11 ` Glauber Costa
2009-09-03 13:43 ` Avi Kivity
2009-09-03 16:46 ` Glauber Costa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4A9FA95D.60404@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=aliguori@us.ibm.com \
--cc=glommer@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).