From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36247) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YB2ps-00067b-TK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:52:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YB2po-0006tu-Th for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:52:48 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:40633) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YB2po-0006rb-Ns for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:52:44 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YB2pc-0003Rd-8P for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:52:32 +0100 Received: from net-37-117-147-67.cust.vodafonedsl.it ([37.117.147.67]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:52:32 +0100 Received: from pbonzini by net-37-117-147-67.cust.vodafonedsl.it with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:52:32 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:52:18 +0100 Message-ID: <54B53122.4090705@redhat.com> References: <20150112115944.3504.66763.stgit@PASHA-ISP> <20150112120111.3504.51955.stgit@PASHA-ISP> <54B3BA70.3080408@redhat.com> <000401d02f11$88a9c000$99fd4000$@Dovgaluk@ispras.ru> <54B4E7F2.1040200@redhat.com> <37329.9191626304$1421159249@news.gmane.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <37329.9191626304$1421159249@news.gmane.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v7 15/21] replay: checkpoints List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com, mark.burton@greensocs.com, real@ispras.ru, batuzovk@ispras.ru, maria.klimushenkova@ispras.ru, alex.bennee@linaro.org, afaerber@suse.de, fred.konrad@greensocs.com On 13/01/2015 15:26, Pavel Dovgaluk wrote: >> > Should you instead distinguish which TimerListGroup is being run? Then >> > main loop would checkpoint once for every TimerListGroup (which means >> > twice). > Then I'll have to introduce some kind of deterministic ID for them > and new asynchronous event to be saved instead of common checkpoints. > Because these calls can be invoked in any order. > But I have no idea of how to make such a deterministic ID. There is currently one TimerListGroup per iothread object, and two more. You can start by not supporting iothreads, or you can give a deterministic ID to iothreads. Paolo