On 2013-07-25 14:35, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 25/07/2013 14:32, Jan Kiszka ha scritto: >> On 2013-07-25 14:21, Alex Bligh wrote: >>> >>> >>> --On 25 July 2013 14:05:30 +0200 Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Alex Bligh's series gives each AioContext its own rt_clock. This avoids >>>> the need for synchronization in the simple case. If we require timer >>>> access between threads then we really need to synchronize. >>>> >>>> You pointed out in another email that vm_clock stops when the guest is >>>> paused. I think we can find a solution for I/O throttling and QED, >>>> which use vm_clock in the block layer. Note that block jobs already use >>>> rt_clock. >>> >>> I would happily at a QEMUClock of each type to AioContext. They are after >>> all pretty lightweight. >> >> What's the point of adding tones of QEMUClock instances? Considering >> proper abstraction, how are they different for each AioContext? Will >> they run against different clock sources, start/stop at different times? >> If the answer is "they have different timer list", then fix this >> incorrect abstraction. > > s/QEMUClock/QEMUTimerList/ ? :)
What do you mean? If the content of struct QEMUClock remained the same, that would just paper over a design mistake. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
