On 06/06/2010 05:48 PM, Corentin Chary wrote:
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Avi Kivity<a...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 06/04/2010 04:20 PM, Corentin Chary wrote:
+ if (vnc_trylock_display(vd)) {
+ vd->timer_interval = VNC_REFRESH_INTERVAL_BASE;
+ qemu_mod_timer(vd->timer, qemu_get_clock(rt_clock) +
+ vd->timer_interval);
+ return;
+ }
+
has_dirty = vnc_refresh_server_surface(vd);
+ vnc_unlock_display(vd);
This could delay the update by quite a bit, no?
Yep, but it's far better than waiting the lock because it doesn't slow
down the main thread.
I played big buck bunny trailler (33sec) in mplayer and tight encoding:
- ~40 sec with the non-threaded server
- ~37 sec with a lock
- ~33 sec with a try_lock
Definitely, blocking the main thread is a no-no.
A more elaborate approach would be to enqueue the refresh job into the
queue. May need the iothread enabled so we have qemu_mutex.
Maybe, but I'd like to wait the generic async work subsystem before
adding different kind of jobs to the queue. And it's already a big
improvment over the current code :).
Hm, ok.
btw, I could not find other uses of vd->mutex, shouldn't it protect against
the work thread?
Check vnc-jobs.c, there is a qemu_mutex_lock(vs->vd->mutex);
Shouldn't it use vnc_lock_display()? That's why I missed it.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
