On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 03:45:44PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2013-08-13 15:39, Alex Bligh wrote:
> > Jan,
> >
> > On 13 Aug 2013, at 14:25, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> >> To my understanding, the use case behind the current behavior is
> >> qemu_aio_wait() which is only supposed to block when there are pending
> >> requests for the main aio context. We should be able to address this
> >> scenarios also in a different way. I would definitely prefer to not
> >> depend on that hack above.
> >
> > I don't *think* so. If I'm right the problem is line 233 of
> > aio-posix.c (and similar in the windows variant):
> >
> > /* No AIO operations? Get us out of here */
> > if (!busy) {
> > return progress;
> > }
> >
> > ... do qemu_poll_ns ...
> >
> > busy is set to true if there are any FDs for which ->flush
> > is true and ->io_flush() returns non-zero.
>
> Right.
>
> >
> > I think this should instead be looking the equivalent of
> > FD_ISSET across all FDs (read and write) and the blocking flag.
> > IE if blocking is set to true, then it should ALWAYS do
> > qemu_poll_ns, lest it busyloop rather than wait for the
> > next timer expiry.
>
> Yes, that would be needed.
>
> >
> > More here:
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-07/msg03950.html
> >
> > I'm not very happy with this logic (but it's the same as before),
> > and I note Stefan removes the horrible busy flag in this
> > series:
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-07/msg00092.html
>
> Yeah:
>
> - /* No AIO operations? Get us out of here */
> - if (!busy) {
> + /* early return if we only have the aio_notify() fd */
> + if (ctx->pollfds->len == 1) {
> return progress;
> }
>
> So this is even worse for my use case.
We can change the semantics of aio_poll() so long as we don't break
existing callers and tests. It would make sense to do that after
merging the io_flush and AioContext timers series.
Stefan
