From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48720 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PxHS2-0005aP-18
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 06:21:11 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1PxHS1-0003RG-2R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 06:21:09 -0500
Received: from mail-qy0-f180.google.com ([209.85.216.180]:53734)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1PxHS1-0003Qi-01
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 06:21:09 -0500
Received: by qyk10 with SMTP id 10so411880qyk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 03:21:08 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D77629A.204@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:20:58 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2640D58E-2101-47FA-99B6-28815666651E@dlh.net>
	<4D772E4C.6020604@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <4D772E4C.6020604@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: segmentation fault in qemu-kvm-0.14.0
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.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: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
Cc: Peter Lieven <pl@dlh.net>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org

On 03/09/2011 08:37 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> It's probably worth validating that the iothread lock is
> always held when qemu_set_fd_handler2 is invoked to confirm this race
> theory, adding something like
>
> assert(pthread_mutex_trylock(&qemu_mutex) != 0);
> (that's for qemu-kvm only)

Alternatively, iohandlers could be a(nother) good place to start 
introducing fine-grained locks or rwlocks.

Paolo