From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58604)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aliguori@us.ibm.com>) id 1UNojj-0005ng-IC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:18:16 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aliguori@us.ibm.com>) id 1UNoje-0002rl-QC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:18:11 -0400
Received: from e23smtp09.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.142]:60391)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aliguori@us.ibm.com>) id 1UNoje-0002rW-99
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:18:06 -0400
Received: from /spool/local
	by e23smtp09.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use
	Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org> from <aliguori@us.ibm.com>;
	Fri, 5 Apr 2013 04:09:23 +1000
Received: from d23relay05.au.ibm.com (d23relay05.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.152])
	by d23dlp02.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB0B2BB0050
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri,  5 Apr 2013 05:17:55 +1100 (EST)
Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97])
	by d23relay05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id
	r34I4XAb10879384
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:04:34 +1100
Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id
	r34IHr67029712
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:17:54 +1100
From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9e=Q9o49H9F+pc_s7SOgx=oZ-ok47NpWSiruSwsoJeyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1364893452-10604-1-git-send-email-peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com>
	<515ABCD1.2070008@redhat.com>
	<CAEgOgz5r5FFr6Wxu08hK+mKr3-ZohEAWSau=u8cPt=W9iZFFRw@mail.gmail.com>
	<82877867.1048290.1364970927865.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
	<CAEgOgz6uWZd7v3fmvRCAWGqvwAoH3wr5ZN3WqpxkVHOSzhkMsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<515D135B.4020003@redhat.com> <87mwteteot.fsf@codemonkey.ws>
	<CAFEAcA9e=Q9o49H9F+pc_s7SOgx=oZ-ok47NpWSiruSwsoJeyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:17:48 -0500
Message-ID: <87obdudusz.fsf@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] main-loop: Unconditionally unlock
	iothread
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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, gson@gson.org

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> On 4 April 2013 17:59, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> So I think this is a long way of saying:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
>
> Any chance we could update the commit message to include
> this more authoritative analysis?

Yes, please do.  I'm also not sure that just always dropping the lock is
the best strategy either.

I think a simple counter with a nice comment that explains why we need
to periodically drop the lock is a better solution as it gives a way to
experiment with the right value to ensure fairness between the threads
without having excessing lock acquisition/release.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> thanks
> -- PMM