On 04/07/2016 21:53, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
What about graphics threads ? In particular I'd be thinking of spice
which uses threads and chardevs.
>>>
>>> I think it should be quiesced after pause_all_vcpus returns. Marc-André
>>> should know, but it's better to check with Gerd
Hi,
> > > What about graphics threads ? In particular I'd be thinking of spice
> > > which uses threads and chardevs.
> >
> > I think it should be quiesced after pause_all_vcpus returns. Marc-André
> > should know, but it's better to check with Gerd.
>
> In theory, spice_server_vm_stop() shou
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 06:43:42PM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Daniel P. Berrange
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:38:23PM +0200, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote:
> >> From: Marc-André Lureau
> >>
> >> It turns out qemu is calling exit() in
Hi
- Original Message -
>
>
> On 04/07/2016 19:07, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > At this point you have stopped all CPUs and block devices. There is not
> > > much else that is going on in QEMU at all, at this point. The solution
> > > would be to stop those threads.
> >
> > What ab
On 04/07/2016 19:07, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > At this point you have stopped all CPUs and block devices. There is not
> > much else that is going on in QEMU at all, at this point. The solution
> > would be to stop those threads.
>
> What about graphics threads ? In particular I'd be thinki
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 06:46:47PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 04/07/2016 18:31, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >> > Instead of using a atexit() handler, only run the chardev cleanup as
> >> > initially proposed at the end of main(), where there are less chances
> >> > (hic) of conflicts or
On 04/07/2016 18:31, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> > Instead of using a atexit() handler, only run the chardev cleanup as
>> > initially proposed at the end of main(), where there are less chances
>> > (hic) of conflicts or other races.
> This doesn't really seem all that much safer. There's still
Hi
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:38:23PM +0200, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote:
>> From: Marc-André Lureau
>>
>> It turns out qemu is calling exit() in various places from various
>> threads without taking much care of resources state.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:38:23PM +0200, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Marc-André Lureau
>
> It turns out qemu is calling exit() in various places from various
> threads without taking much care of resources state. The atexit()
> cleanup handlers cannot easily destroy resources that
On 04/07/2016 17:38, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Marc-André Lureau
>
> It turns out qemu is calling exit() in various places from various
> threads without taking much care of resources state. The atexit()
> cleanup handlers cannot easily destroy resources that are in use (by
> t
From: Marc-André Lureau
It turns out qemu is calling exit() in various places from various
threads without taking much care of resources state. The atexit()
cleanup handlers cannot easily destroy resources that are in use (by
the same thread or other).
Since ca24a3, TCG arm guests run into t
11 matches
Mail list logo
