On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 05:24:00PM +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 02:05:32PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> A number of driver API methods which acquire the driver mutex
> only ever used the driver object in a read-only fashion. All
> these uses are converted to call qemuDriverLockRO() allowing
> for greater concurrency.
>
> * src/qemu/qemu_conf.h: s/Mutex/RWLock/
> * src/qemu/qemu_driver.c: Add a qemuDriverLockRO() method and use
> it anywhere that doesn't require a write lock on the driver
Hum, I still wonder about erro handling strategies there, for example
even taking a read lock may fail not because of a programing error
because there is already too many read lock taken.
[...]
> @@ -6834,6 +6846,8 @@ cleanup:
>
> if (vm)
> virDomainObjUnlock(vm);
> + qemuDriverUnlock(driver);
> + qemuDriverLock(driver);
> if (event)
> qemuDomainEventQueue(driver, event);
> qemuDriverUnlock(driver);
Huh ??? really ? we need a way to allow other threads to get in ?
Maybe a tiny wait here would allow a rescheduling especially if on a
single processor.
This is a merge error.
But otherwise this looks like a fairly automatic conversion so
should
go in with 02/21 when ready, ACK
I'm withdrawing this patch, and the one implementing RWLock. I believe I
have a more effective way to deal with concurrency. See the mail I just
sent out....
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://ovirt.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|