From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NkhFh-0008DU-Uq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:11:54 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40439 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NkhFg-0008Cq-Ry
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:11:52 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1NkhFg-0000mq-4k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:11:52 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:19656)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1NkhFf-0000mW-Bd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:11:51 -0500
Message-ID: <4B86AF40.5090401@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:11:28 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH] performance improvement for windows
	guests, running on top of virtio block device
References: <1263195647.2005.44.camel@localhost>
	<201002240258.19045.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<4B853ED3.3060707@codemonkey.ws>
	<201002251506.05318.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <201002251506.05318.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Dor Laor <dlaor@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Vadim Rozenfeld <vrozenfe@redhat.com>

On 02/25/2010 05:06 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
>>> Idle bottom halves (i.e. qemu_bh_schedule_idle) are just bugs waiting to
>>> happen, and should never be used for anything.
>>>        
>> Idle bottom halves make considerable more sense than the normal bottom
>> halves.
>>
>> The fact that rescheduling a bottom half within a bottom half results in
>> an infinite loop is absurd.  It is equally absurd that bottoms halves
>> alter the select timeout.  The result of that is that if a bottom half
>> schedules another bottom half, and that bottom half schedules the
>> previous, you get a tight infinite loop.  Since bottom halves are used
>> often times deep within functions, the result is very subtle infinite
>> loops (that we've absolutely encountered in the past).
>>      
> I disagree. The "select timeout" is a completely irrelevant implementation
> detail. Anything that relies on it is just plain wrong. If you require a delay
> then you should be using a timer. If scheduling a BH directly then you should
> expect it to be processed without delay.
>    

I agree.  Further, once we fine-grain device threading, the iothread 
essentially disappears and is replaced by device-specific threads.  
There's no "idle" anymore.

-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.