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
10 matches
Mail list logo
