From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:60882)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1RMGAI-00074v-H8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 05:34:23 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1RMGAH-0005M9-IC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 05:34:22 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23164)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1RMGAH-0005M2-B4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 05:34:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4EB3B18B.2060900@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:34:03 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4EB1640F.2090604@adacore.com> <j8rqt1$mc2$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<4EB1796B.7050901@adacore.com>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1111022115290.2177@linmac>
	<4EB181C4.1090501@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA_rJdNtOv5UJxks560W4pF4Sqk=wR6Zr90Y0Tyyy6W-XA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EB19F6B.8020907@redhat.com> <4EB264D5.6070009@adacore.com>
	<4EB2689F.3060205@redhat.com> <4EB26CF4.7080806@redhat.com>
	<4EB27FF6.2040907@redhat.com> <4EB3B006.6080504@adacore.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EB3B006.6080504@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: <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: Fabien Chouteau <chouteau@adacore.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 11/04/2011 10:27 AM, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>> It's a huge assumption though, and I don't think it should be assumed anymore.
>
> What can we do to improve that?

Remove the affinity change and see what breaks. :)

> >  With iothread the architecture of the QEMU main loop is anyway completely different.
>
> Are you saying that things are better or worst with iothread?

I think better.  Without iothread, cpu_interrupt was called by 
qemu_notify_event.  With iothread it is not.  Perhaps that was the 
original problem with timers?...

Paolo