On 2011-10-26 18:27, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 26.10.2011 18:02, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
>> On 2011-10-26 17:18, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 26 October 2011 16:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
My point is that it is fine to use for per-vcpu variables because:
- they are single-threaded in TCG mode
>>
Am 26.10.2011 18:02, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> On 2011-10-26 17:18, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 26 October 2011 16:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> My point is that it is fine to use for per-vcpu variables because:
>>> - they are single-threaded in TCG mode
>>> - they are multi-threaded in KVM mode, but tha
On 2011-10-26 17:18, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 26 October 2011 16:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> My point is that it is fine to use for per-vcpu variables because:
>> - they are single-threaded in TCG mode
>> - they are multi-threaded in KVM mode, but that's only affecting Linux
>> hosts for which t
On 26 October 2011 16:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> My point is that it is fine to use for per-vcpu variables because:
> - they are single-threaded in TCG mode
> - they are multi-threaded in KVM mode, but that's only affecting Linux
> hosts for which this TLS wrapper is already usable
Oh, I see. Fe
On 2011-10-26 17:09, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 26 October 2011 16:02, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-10-26 16:54, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 26 October 2011 15:39, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 10/26/2011 04:03 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> For the record (since I think we only talked about
On 26 October 2011 16:02, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-10-26 16:54, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 26 October 2011 15:39, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2011 04:03 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
For the record (since I think we only talked about this on IRC):
* the POSIX TLS fallback code
On 2011-10-26 16:54, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 26 October 2011 15:39, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 10/26/2011 04:03 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>
>>> For the record (since I think we only talked about this on IRC):
>>> * the POSIX TLS fallback code doesn't work on Linux hosts for
>>>linux-user e
On 10/26/2011 04:54 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 26 October 2011 15:39, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 10/26/2011 04:03 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
For the record (since I think we only talked about this on IRC):
* the POSIX TLS fallback code doesn't work on Linux hosts for
linux-user emulation (t
On 26 October 2011 15:39, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 04:03 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>> For the record (since I think we only talked about this on IRC):
>> * the POSIX TLS fallback code doesn't work on Linux hosts for
>> linux-user emulation (the constructor is never called to set
On 10/26/2011 04:03 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
For the record (since I think we only talked about this on IRC):
* the POSIX TLS fallback code doesn't work on Linux hosts for
linux-user emulation (the constructor is never called to set up
the TLS for the main thread, probably something to
On 5 October 2011 10:21, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
[tls patches]
> If interested people can test the patches more and submit them more
> formally, I'd be very glad. I wrote it for RCU, but of course that one is
> not really going to be 1.0 material (even for 9p).
For the record (since I think we only
On 10/07/2011 07:29 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
Hmm this got a bit more complex than the original patch; still it covers a lot
more bases.
Should this also replace the THREAD that's defined in
linux-user/qemu.h and bsd-user/qemu.h (that is __thread if built with
NPTL)?
It seems to only be there for
On 5 October 2011 10:21, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> If interested people can test the patches more and submit them more
> formally, I'd be very glad. I wrote it for RCU, but of course that one is
> not really going to be 1.0 material (even for 9p).
Hmm this got a bit more complex than the original
On 10/05/2011 09:52 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Yeah, it probably makes sense to build the abstractions around __thread
so that - one day - we can drop the legacy wrappers.
Just do not prepend "tls__" in the gcc model
Actually I did that on purpose so that people would not forget get_tls. :)
(ther
On 2011-10-05 09:08, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 07:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Looks like a start. But I would avoid macros and go for (static inline)
>> functions where possible. And initialization should be explicit (so that
>> you can start using TLS already inside constructors).
>
>
On 10/04/2011 07:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Looks like a start. But I would avoid macros and go for (static inline)
functions where possible. And initialization should be explicit (so that
you can start using TLS already inside constructors).
Here is the patch I wrote to do more or less the same
On 2011-10-04 17:10, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Jan Kiszka writes:
>
>> On 2011-10-03 18:33, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>> Make cpu_single_env thread local (Linux only for now)
>>> * Fixes some user space threading issues (esp those triggered
>>> by bug 823902)
>>>
>>> Against rev d11cf8cc..., te
Jan Kiszka writes:
> On 2011-10-03 18:33, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> Make cpu_single_env thread local (Linux only for now)
>> * Fixes some user space threading issues (esp those triggered
>> by bug 823902)
>>
>> Against rev d11cf8cc..., tested on ARM user mode, and ARM Vexpress
>> system mo
On 2011-10-03 18:33, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> Make cpu_single_env thread local (Linux only for now)
> * Fixes some user space threading issues (esp those triggered
> by bug 823902)
>
> Against rev d11cf8cc..., tested on ARM user mode, and ARM Vexpress
> system mode (with Blue Swirl'
19 matches
Mail list logo
