On 26/06/2015 18:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 26/06/2015 18:09, Frederic Konrad wrote:
+void async_run_safe_work_on_cpu(CPUState *cpu, void (*func)(void
*data),
+void *data)
+{
Do you need a mutex to protect this data structure? I would use one
even if not st
On 26/06/2015 18:09, Frederic Konrad wrote:
>>>
>>> +void async_run_safe_work_on_cpu(CPUState *cpu, void (*func)(void
>>> *data),
>>> +void *data)
>>> +{
>> Do you need a mutex to protect this data structure? I would use one
>> even if not strictly necessary, to
On 26/06/2015 17:35, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 26/06/2015 16:47, fred.kon...@greensocs.com wrote:
diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c
index de256d6..d6442cd 100644
--- a/cpu-exec.c
+++ b/cpu-exec.c
Nice solution. However I still have a few questions that need
clarification.
@@ -382,6 +382,11
On 26/06/2015 16:47, fred.kon...@greensocs.com wrote:
> diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c
> index de256d6..d6442cd 100644
> --- a/cpu-exec.c
> +++ b/cpu-exec.c
Nice solution. However I still have a few questions that need
clarification.
> @@ -382,6 +382,11 @@ int cpu_exec(CPUArchState *env)
>
From: KONRAD Frederic
We already had async_run_on_cpu but we need all VCPUs outside their execution
loop to execute some tb_flush/invalidate task:
async_run_on_cpu_safe schedule a work on a VCPU but the work start when no more
VCPUs are executing code.
When a safe work is pending cpu_has_work re
