On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:54:13PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > On 01/04/2010 02:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 02:24:53PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> > >>> On 12/21/2009 02:09 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >>> > >>>> Make the timer subsystem register its own bottom half instead of > >>>> placing the bottom half code in the heart of the main loop. To > >>>> test if an alarm timer is pending, just check if the bottom half is > >>>> scheduled. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini<pbonz...@redhat.com> > >>>> > >>> I'm not a huge fan of this for a couple reasons. The first is that it > >>> introduces a subtle semantic change. Previously, timers always ran > >>> before bottom halves whereas after this change, timers may run after > >>> some bottoms halves but before others. While this should be okay in > >>> principle, in practice, I'm sure it'll introduce regressions. I'd be > >>> very surprised if cris wasn't affected by this. > >>> > >>> But more importantly, I think timer dispatch needs to be part of the > >>> select loop. malc has a git tree that replaces host alarm timers with > >>> select() timeouts. > >>> > >> Where is that tree? > >> > > > > http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/malc.git mtloop > > Don't seem to see anything there. > malc?
Yes? > >> IMO we need that, I am not sure all code is as signal-safe > >> as it should be. At least crashes that I saw with winxp install > >> seem to be related to signal handling. > >> > > > > Regards, > > > > Anthony Liguori > -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
