[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC] queue_work proposal
From: |
Glauber Costa |
Subject: |
[Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC] queue_work proposal |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:07:50 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Jack Bauer |
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 09:36:09AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> + env->queued_total++;
>> +
>> + if (env == qemu_get_current_env()) {
>> + env->queued_total++;
>
> Why increment twice? (though queued_total is write only and queued_local
> is unused, so...)
yeah, you got it =p
As I said, I just dumped whatever I had.
>
>> + func(data);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + wii = qemu_mallocz(sizeof(*wii));
>> + wii->func = func;
>> + wii->data = data;
>> + wii->wait = wait;
>> + TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&env->queued_work, wii, entry);
>> +
>> + qemu_thread_signal(env->thread, SIGUSR1);
>> +
>> + while (wait&& !wii->done) {
>> + qemu_cond_wait(env->work_cond,&qemu_global_mutex);
>> + }
>
> You need to lock qemu_global_mutex around this while statement, or to
> add env->queue_mutex and include the TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL in the mutex.
Thanks for catching. The later is clearly preferred , IMHO, for scalability
purposes.