On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 06:23:34PM +0300, malc wrote: > 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?
Do you have a patch to switch from signals to select? If yes could you tell me where it is so I can test whether it fixes winxp install crashes I see? > > >> 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
