From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, aurelien@aurel32.net,
gson@gson.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] main-loop: Unconditionally unlock iothread
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 13:11:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <515ABCD1.2070008@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1364893452-10604-1-git-send-email-peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com>
Il 02/04/2013 11:04, Peter Crosthwaite ha scritto:
> Public bug: 1154328
> Broken Commit: a29753f8aa79a34a324afebe340182a51a5aef11
>
> ATM, the timeout from g_pollfds_fill is inhibiting unlocking of the
> iothread. This is capable of causing a total deadlock when hw/serial
> is used as a device. The bug manifests when you go -nographic -serial
> mon:stdio and then paste 40 or more chars into the terminal.
>
> My knowledge of this g_foo is vague at best, but my best working
> theory is this:
>
> - First 8 chars are recieved by the serial device no complaints.
> - The next 32 chars, serial returns false for can_receive() so they
> are buffered by the MuxDriver object - mux_chr_read()
> - Buffer is full, so 41st char causes false return from Muxes own
> can_read()
> - This propagates all the way up to glib_pollfds_fill and manifests
> as a timeout
I suppose you mean "manifests as timeout==0". The question is *which*
GSource has a timeout of zero? Not the mux's: if mux_chr_can_read()
returns zero, the prepare function returns FALSE without touching the
timeout at all...
static gboolean io_watch_poll_prepare(GSource *source, gint *timeout_)
{
IOWatchPoll *iwp = io_watch_poll_from_source(source);
iwp->max_size = iwp->fd_can_read(iwp->opaque);
if (iwp->max_size == 0) {
return FALSE;
}
return g_io_watch_funcs.prepare(source, timeout_);
}
> - Timeout means no unlock of IOthread. Device land never sees any more
> cycles so the serial port never progresses - no flushing of
> buffer
Still, this is plausible, so the patch looks correct.
Paolo
> - Deadlock
>
> Tested on petalogix_ml605 microblazeel machine model, which was faulty
> due to 1154328.
>
> Fix by removing the conditions on unlocking the iothread. Don't know
> what else this will break but the timeout is certainly the wrong
> condition for the unlock. Probably the real solution is to have a more
> selective unlock policy.
>
> I'm happy for someone to take this patch off my hands, or educate me on
> the correct implementation. For the peeps doing automated testing on
> nographic platforms this will get your build working again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com>
> ---
> main-loop.c | 8 ++------
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/main-loop.c b/main-loop.c
> index eb80ff3..a376898 100644
> --- a/main-loop.c
> +++ b/main-loop.c
> @@ -194,15 +194,11 @@ static int os_host_main_loop_wait(uint32_t timeout)
>
> glib_pollfds_fill(&timeout);
>
> - if (timeout > 0) {
> - qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
> - }
> + qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
>
> ret = g_poll((GPollFD *)gpollfds->data, gpollfds->len, timeout);
>
> - if (timeout > 0) {
> - qemu_mutex_lock_iothread();
> - }
> + qemu_mutex_lock_iothread();
>
> glib_pollfds_poll();
> return ret;
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-02 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-02 9:04 [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] main-loop: Unconditionally unlock iothread Peter Crosthwaite
2013-04-02 11:11 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2013-04-03 2:17 ` Peter Crosthwaite
2013-04-03 6:35 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-04-03 23:58 ` Peter Crosthwaite
2013-04-04 5:44 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-04-04 13:49 ` Anthony Liguori
2013-04-04 16:59 ` Anthony Liguori
2013-04-04 17:03 ` Peter Maydell
2013-04-04 18:17 ` Anthony Liguori
2013-04-04 18:57 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-04-04 19:54 ` Anthony Liguori
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-04-02 8:53 Peter Crosthwaite
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=515ABCD1.2070008@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=aliguori@us.ibm.com \
--cc=aurelien@aurel32.net \
--cc=gson@gson.org \
--cc=peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.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).