On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 08:05:11AM +0800, liu ping fan wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > @@ -376,13 +411,16 @@ bool timerlist_run_timers(QEMUTimerList *timer_list)
> >
> > current_time = qemu_clock_get_ns(timer_list->clock->type);
> > for(;;) {
> > + qemu_mutex_lock(&timer_list->active_timers_lock);
> > ts = timer_list->active_timers;
> > if (!timer_expired_ns(ts, current_time)) {
> > + qemu_mutex_unlock(&timer_list->active_timers_lock);
> > break;
> > }
> > /* remove timer from the list before calling the callback */
> > timer_list->active_timers = ts->next;
> > ts->next = NULL;
> > + qemu_mutex_unlock(&timer_list->active_timers_lock);
> >
> Could we do better than this? lock/unlock around ts->cb always cause extra
> cost?
> Beside this, others seems good.
ts->cb() can do anything. We need to drop the mutex to prevent
recursive locking.
There is no cheap way to clone the list before the loop (so that we
don't need to hold any lock while iterating), and the list may change
when ts->cb() is called.
Did you have a specific improvement in mind?
Stefan
