On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 05:50:32PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On 06/20/11 17:11, Alon Levy wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 04:07:59PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >>>>What is the difference to one worker->stop() + worker->start() cycle? > >>>> > >>> > >>>ok, stop+start won't disconnect any clients either. But does stop render > >>>all waiting commands? > >>>I'll have to look, I don't know if it does. > >> > >>It does. This is what qemu uses to flush all spice server state to > >>device memory on migration. > >> > >>What is the reason for deleting all surfaces? > > > >Making sure all references are dropped to pci memory in devram. > > Ah, because the spice server keeps a reference to the create command > until the surface is destroyed, right?
Actually right, so my correction stands corrected. > > There is is QXL_IO_DESTROY_ALL_SURFACES + worker->destroy_surfaces() ... > Regarding QXL_IO_DESTROY_ALL_SURFACES, it destroys the primary surface too, which is a little special, that's another difference - update_mem destroys everything except the primary. I know I tried to destroy the primary but it didn't work right, don't recall why right now, so I guess I'll have to retry. > The QXL_IO_UPDATE_MEM command does too much special stuff IMHO. > I also think we don't need to extend the libspice-server API. > > We can add a I/O command which renders everything to device memory > via stop+start. We can zap all surfaces with the existing command + Yes, start+stop work nicely, didn't realize (saw it before, assumed it wouldn't be good enough), just need to destroy the surfaces too. > worker call. We can add a I/O command to ask qxl to push the > release queue head to the release ring. So you suggest to replace QXL_IO_UPDATE_MEM with what, two io commands instead of using the val parameter? QXL_IO_UPDATE_MEM QXL_IO_FLUSH_RELEASE ? > > Comments? > > cheers, > Gerd >
