Re: [RESEND PATCH V10 06/15] monitor: Update tracking iothread users with holder

On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 12:39 PM Markus Armbruster <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zhang Chen <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 3:23 PM Markus Armbruster <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Zhang Chen <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 8:33 PM Markus Armbruster <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Zhang Chen <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Based on monitor QOM path tracking iothread users with holder.
> >> >> > Introduce the AioContext in the Monitor struct to avoid repeated calls to
> >> >> > iothread_get_aio_context() and ensure symmetrical ref/unref during
> >> >> > monitor lifecycle.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen <[email protected]>
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are repeated calls bad?
> >> >>
> >> >> How would symmetry be lost?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > OK, will add detailed comments like this in the next version:
> >> >
> >> > Avoid repeated calls: Under the holder tracking model, fetching the
> >> > AioContext increments the IOThread refcount and registers holder metadata.
> >> > Dynamically querying it in helper functions (e.g., suspend, BH scheduling)
> >> > leads to redundant refcount churn.
> >>
> >> Right here, we still have
> >>
> >>     AioContext *iothread_get_aio_context(IOThread *iothread)
> >>     {
> >>         return iothread->ctx;
> >>     }
> >>
> >> and complicating code to avoid additional calls feels dubious.
> >>
> >> PATCH 14 changes it to
> >>
> >>     AioContext *iothread_get_aio_context(IOThread *iothread,
> >>                                          const IOThreadHolder *holder)
> >>     {
> >>         /* Add IOThreadHolder to the list */
> >>         iothread_ref(iothread, holder);
> >>
> >>         return iothread->ctx;
> >>      }
> >>
> >> Are you making this change in preparation of PATCH 14?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yes, following Stefan's earlier suggestion allows for lifecycle management
> > to be completed with minimal disruption.
>
> The commit message is problematic, because it's written as if PATCH 14
> was already applied.  Please adjust it.  Something like "A subsequent
> patch will make repeated calls ... undesirable."  Same for symmetry.
>

OK, will update in the next version.

Thanks
Chen

> [...]
>