| Message ID | CAJhHMCAwFVfW1u7VnCE2WVDtueD1+BJhq9EpSjOTGO85Q3fytw@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> writes: >> >>> no-reply@patchew.org writes: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This series failed build test on s390x host. Please find the details >>>> below. >> >> It also failed on x86-on-x86 MTTCG as well as other tests: >> >>>> ERROR:/var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-_186415r/src/cpus.c:1554:qemu_mutex_lock_iothread: assertion failed: (!qemu_mutex_iothread_locked()) >>>> GTester: last random seed: R02Sf1ce767b432f1559eaf8cc0c5a31eb02 >>> >>> Well I've seen this before if the IRQ chain doesn't do locking properly >>> but I'm at a loss why this breaks on an s390 host as the code is common. >>> >>> Does anyone have a spare s390 that I can test on? >> >> Look like I'll have to roll this in: >> >> https://github.com/stsquad/qemu/commit/c6f4245ffd9df8ffcd2d4d655c322189c19a6c1a >> > > I am able to successfully boot my test images using this patch (they > fail without it). Another approach might be to reset the lock in the > outer loop: > > diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c > index f3c78a9..8327050 100644 > --- a/cpu-exec.c > +++ b/cpu-exec.c > @@ -684,6 +684,9 @@ int cpu_exec(CPUState *cpu) > if the guest is in advance */ > align_clocks(&sc, cpu); > } > + if (qemu_mutex_iothread_locked()) { > + qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread(); > + } The only aesthetic objection I have is not aligning the unlocks with where the lock are taken. That said my patch is fairly ugly in that regard ;-) > } > > cc->cpu_exec_exit(cpu); > > > I think either patch is fine. -- Alex Bennée
diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c index f3c78a9..8327050 100644 --- a/cpu-exec.c +++ b/cpu-exec.c @@ -684,6 +684,9 @@ int cpu_exec(CPUState *cpu) if the guest is in advance */ align_clocks(&sc, cpu); } + if (qemu_mutex_iothread_locked()) { + qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread(); + } } cc->cpu_exec_exit(cpu);