From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44596) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLuGI-0004Dw-QD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 06:11:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLuGD-0002Ft-89 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 06:11:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46488) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLuGD-0002Fi-1A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 06:11:01 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB2689F.3060205@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:10:39 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4EB1640F.2090604@adacore.com> <4EB1796B.7050901@adacore.com> <4EB181C4.1090501@redhat.com> <4EB19F6B.8020907@redhat.com> <4EB264D5.6070009@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <4EB264D5.6070009@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Multiple instances of Qemu on Windows multicore List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fabien Chouteau Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 11/03/2011 10:54 AM, Fabien Chouteau wrote: >>> >> The unchaining is neither signal-safe nor thread-safe... >> > >> > Yeah, but there's nothing Windows-specific in that. > That's very important, I don't see why it is different between Linux and > Windows here. Yep, perhaps for timers it was the case a while ago, but with iothread+dynticks it should not be a problem anymore. For unchaining, Linux and Windows should have never been different. > Also, why running all the threads on the same CPU would > make the code thread-safe? It would ensure that two mutators wouldn't run concurrently. In some sense, signal-safe code could then be considered thread-safe too. Paolo