qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] block: Allow bdrv_run_co() from different AioContext


From: Kevin Wolf
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] block: Allow bdrv_run_co() from different AioContext
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 21:29:36 +0200

Am 12.05.2020 um 18:02 hat Thomas Lamprecht geschrieben:
> On 5/12/20 4:43 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Coroutine functions that are entered through bdrv_run_co() are already
> > safe to call from synchronous code in a different AioContext because
> > bdrv_coroutine_enter() will schedule them in the context of the node.
> > 
> > However, the coroutine fastpath still requires that we're already in the
> > right AioContext when called in coroutine context.
> > 
> > In order to make the behaviour more consistent and to make life a bit
> > easier for callers, let's check the AioContext and automatically move
> > the current coroutine around if we're not in the right context yet.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  block/io.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c
> > index c1badaadc9..7808e8bdc0 100644
> > --- a/block/io.c
> > +++ b/block/io.c
> > @@ -895,8 +895,21 @@ static int bdrv_run_co(BlockDriverState *bs, 
> > CoroutineEntry *entry,
> >                         void *opaque, int *ret)
> >  {
> >      if (qemu_in_coroutine()) {
> > -        /* Fast-path if already in coroutine context */
> > +        Coroutine *self = qemu_coroutine_self();
> > +        AioContext *bs_ctx = bdrv_get_aio_context(bs);
> > +        AioContext *co_ctx = qemu_coroutine_get_aio_context(self);
> > +
> > +        if (bs_ctx != co_ctx) {
> > +            /* Move to the iothread of the node */
> > +            aio_co_schedule(bs_ctx, self);
> > +            qemu_coroutine_yield();
> > +        }
> >          entry(opaque);
> > +        if (bs_ctx != co_ctx) {
> > +            /* Move back to the original AioContext */
> > +            aio_co_schedule(bs_ctx, self);
> 
> shouldn't it use co_ctx here, as else it's just scheduled again on the
> one from bs?

Oops, you're right, of course.

> Looks OK for me besides that.

Thanks!

Kevin




reply via email to

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