[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Qemu-devel] Re: [v1 PATCH 2/3]: Helper routines to use GLib threadpool

From: Stefan Hajnoczi
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [v1 PATCH 2/3]: Helper routines to use GLib threadpool infrastructure in 9pfs.
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:03:18 +0000

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV)
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On 3/16/2011 6:10 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 03/16/2011 04:20 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>  wrote:
>>>> Why even bothering signaling for completion with the virtio-9p threadpool?
>>>> There's no sane guest that's going to poll on virtio-9p completion with
>>>> interrupts disabled and no timer.  Once we enable the I/O thread by 
>>>> default,
>>>> it won't even be necessary for the paio layer.
>>> It's not just about preventing livelock under extreme cases.  If you
>>> omit the signal then !CONFIG_IOTHREAD builds will see increased
>>> latency because virtfs request completion will piggy-back on other
>>> events that *do* interrupt the vcpu.
>> But realistically, the timer is firing at a high enough frequency that I 
>> doubt
>> you'd even observe the latency.
>> There's an easy solution here, just do some sniff testing to see if you can 
>> tell
>> the difference.  I bet you can't.
>>>    I'm no fan of !CONFIG_IOTHREAD
>>> but skipping signals is currently bad practice and will continue to be
>>> until CONFIG_IOTHREAD is removed entirely.
>>> The proper solution would be a thin abstraction for thread-safe
>>> notification that compiles out signals when CONFIG_IOTHREAD is used.
>>> Then we have one place in QEMU that does signalling correctly and we
>>> can optimize it or remove CONFIG_IOTHREAD completely without having
>>> the burden of duplicating this code in several places.
>> We have probably 5 different ways to wake up a CPU.  I don't think we should 
>> add
>> a new one just for this.
>> !CONFIG_IOTHREAD needs to go away in the very near future.  I'd rather focus 
>> on
>> that.
> If that is the case, how about making VirtFS dependent on CONFIG_IOTHREAD
> during the configuration? This can help even if !CONFIG_IOTHREAD lingers 
> around
> for some more time and would avoid any of the Stefan's concerns.

Sounds fair.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]