On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 11/02/2011 06:16 PM, malc wrote: > > (mm)Timers have a possibility of running on a thread of their own which > > might be schedulled on the CPU different from the thread that runs > > emulated code, unchaining TBs and can (and will) fail in this case. > > This should not be a problem with dynticks+iothread (i.e. it should work or > not work equally). We now run just this basically when an alarm fires: >
I was explaining rationale behind pinning stuff at the time it was done. > t->expired = t->pending = 1; > qemu_notify_event(); > > The rest is always done in the iothread. The iothread will then > suspend/resume the VCPU thread around the unchaining, so what matters is (in > Unix parlance) signal-safety of the unchaining, not thread-safety. > > Paolo > -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
