From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: liu ping fan <qemulist@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] exec.c: use refcnt to protect device during dispatching
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:13:13 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50114269.2000906@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJnKYQnxG-m=8=wY9ogQMiBtuTpvJ2cUxsUQexWHk82vfuoxzA@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/26/2012 04:06 PM, liu ping fan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 07/25/2012 01:58 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>> while (len > 0) {
>>>> page = addr & TARGET_PAGE_MASK;
>>>> l = (page + TARGET_PAGE_SIZE) - addr;
>>>> if (l > len)
>>>> l = len;
>>>> +
>>>> + qemu_rwlock_rdlock_devtree();
>>>> section = phys_page_find(page >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS);
>>>
>>> Does the devtree lock also protect the data structures accessed by
>>> phys_page_find()? Seems wrong.
>>
>> The right way is to object_ref() in core_region_add() and object_unref()
>> in core_region_del(). We're guaranteed that mr->object is alive during
>> _add(), and DeviceClass::unmap() ensures that the extra ref doesn't
>> block destruction.
>>
> OK, I see. I will try in this way. But when
> memory_region_destroy()->..->core_region_del(), should we reset the
> lp.ptr to phys_section_unassigned , otherwise, if using removed
> target_phys_addr_t, we will still get the pointer to invalid
> MemoryRegion?
The intent was to use rcu, so when we rebuild phys_map we build it into
a new tree, use rcu_assign_pointer() to switch into the new tree, then
synchronize_rcu() and drop the old tree.
Since we don't have rcu yet we can emulate it with a lock. We can start
with a simple mutex around the lookup and rebuild, then switch to rwlock
or rcu if needed.
(without the lock or rcu, just changing lp.ptr is dangerous, since it is
a bit field)
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: liu ping fan <qemulist@gmail.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] exec.c: use refcnt to protect device during dispatching
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:13:13 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50114269.2000906@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJnKYQnxG-m=8=wY9ogQMiBtuTpvJ2cUxsUQexWHk82vfuoxzA@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/26/2012 04:06 PM, liu ping fan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 07/25/2012 01:58 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>> while (len > 0) {
>>>> page = addr & TARGET_PAGE_MASK;
>>>> l = (page + TARGET_PAGE_SIZE) - addr;
>>>> if (l > len)
>>>> l = len;
>>>> +
>>>> + qemu_rwlock_rdlock_devtree();
>>>> section = phys_page_find(page >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS);
>>>
>>> Does the devtree lock also protect the data structures accessed by
>>> phys_page_find()? Seems wrong.
>>
>> The right way is to object_ref() in core_region_add() and object_unref()
>> in core_region_del(). We're guaranteed that mr->object is alive during
>> _add(), and DeviceClass::unmap() ensures that the extra ref doesn't
>> block destruction.
>>
> OK, I see. I will try in this way. But when
> memory_region_destroy()->..->core_region_del(), should we reset the
> lp.ptr to phys_section_unassigned , otherwise, if using removed
> target_phys_addr_t, we will still get the pointer to invalid
> MemoryRegion?
The intent was to use rcu, so when we rebuild phys_map we build it into
a new tree, use rcu_assign_pointer() to switch into the new tree, then
synchronize_rcu() and drop the old tree.
Since we don't have rcu yet we can emulate it with a lock. We can start
with a simple mutex around the lookup and rebuild, then switch to rwlock
or rcu if needed.
(without the lock or rcu, just changing lp.ptr is dangerous, since it is
a bit field)
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-26 13:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-25 3:31 [PATCH 0/5] prepare unplug out of protection of global lock Liu Ping Fan
2012-07-25 3:31 ` [Qemu-devel] " Liu Ping Fan
2012-07-25 3:31 ` [PATCH 1/5] qom: adopt rwlock to protect accessing dev from removing it Liu Ping Fan
2012-07-25 3:31 ` [Qemu-devel] " Liu Ping Fan
2012-07-25 9:08 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-25 9:08 ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-26 12:56 ` liu ping fan
2012-07-26 12:56 ` [Qemu-devel] " liu ping fan
2012-07-26 13:00 ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-26 13:00 ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2012-07-26 13:14 ` liu ping fan
2012-07-26 13:14 ` [Qemu-devel] " liu ping fan
2012-07-26 13:15 ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-26 13:15 ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2012-07-26 13:21 ` liu ping fan
2012-07-26 13:21 ` [Qemu-devel] " liu ping fan
2012-07-26 13:46 ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-26 13:46 ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2012-07-25 3:31 ` [PATCH 2/5] exec.c: use refcnt to protect device during dispatching Liu Ping Fan
2012-07-25 3:31 ` [Qemu-devel] " Liu Ping Fan
2012-07-25 7:43 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2012-07-25 7:43 ` [Qemu-devel] " Stefan Hajnoczi
2012-07-25 8:12 ` liu ping fan
2012-07-25 8:12 ` [Qemu-devel] " liu ping fan
2012-07-25 9:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-25 9:18 ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-26 13:00 ` liu ping fan
2012-07-26 13:00 ` [Qemu-devel] " liu ping fan
2012-07-25 10:58 ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-25 10:58 ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2012-07-25 12:27 ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-25 12:27 ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2012-07-26 13:06 ` liu ping fan
2012-07-26 13:06 ` [Qemu-devel] " liu ping fan
2012-07-26 13:13 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2012-07-26 13:13 ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-25 3:31 ` [PATCH 3/5] hotplug: introduce qdev_unplug_ack() to remove device from views Liu Ping Fan
2012-07-25 3:31 ` [Qemu-devel] " Liu Ping Fan
2012-07-25 10:58 ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-25 10:58 ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2012-07-25 3:31 ` [PATCH 4/5] qom: delay DeviceState's reclaim to main-loop Liu Ping Fan
2012-07-25 3:31 ` [Qemu-devel] " Liu Ping Fan
2012-07-25 7:03 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2012-07-25 7:03 ` [Qemu-devel] " Stefan Hajnoczi
2012-07-25 7:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-25 7:37 ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-25 8:16 ` liu ping fan
2012-07-25 8:16 ` [Qemu-devel] " liu ping fan
2012-07-25 8:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-25 8:22 ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-25 8:17 ` liu ping fan
2012-07-25 8:17 ` [Qemu-devel] " liu ping fan
2012-07-25 3:31 ` [PATCH 5/5] e1000: using new interface--unmap to unplug Liu Ping Fan
2012-07-25 3:31 ` [Qemu-devel] " Liu Ping Fan
2012-07-25 7:12 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2012-07-25 7:12 ` [Qemu-devel] " Stefan Hajnoczi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50114269.2000906@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemulist@gmail.com \
--cc=stefanha@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.