Re: [Qemu-devel] [big lock] Discussion about the convention of device's DMA each other after breaking down biglock

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 09/19/2012 12:00 PM, liu ping fan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 09/19/2012 06:02 AM, liu ping fan wrote:
>>> Currently, cpu_physical_memory_rw() can be used directly or indirectly
>>> by mmio-dispatcher to access other devices' memory region. This can
>>> cause some problem when adopting device's private lock.
>>>
>>> Back ground refer to:
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-09/msg01481.html
>>> For lazy, just refer to:
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-09/msg01878.html
>>>
>>>
>>> --1st. the recursive lock of biglock.
>>> If we leave c_p_m_rw() as it is, ie, no lock inside. Then we can have
>>> the following (section of the whole call chain, and with
>>> private_lockA):
>>>       lockA-mmio-dispatcher   --> hold biglock -- >c_p_m_rw() --- >
>>> Before c_p_m_rw(), we drop private_lockA to anti the possibly of
>>> deadlock.  But we can not anti the nested of this chain or calling to
>>> another lockB-mmio-dispatcher. So we can not avoid the possibility of
>>> nested lock of biglock.  And another important factor is that we break
>>> the lock sequence: private_lock-->biglock.
>>> All of these require us to push biglock's holding into c_p_m_rw(), the
>>> wrapper can not give help.
>>
>> I agree that this is unavoidable.
>>
>>>
>>> --2nd. c_p_m_rw(), sync or async?
>>>
>>> IF we convert all of the device to be protected by refcount, then we can have
>>> //no big lock
>>>  c_p_m_rw()
>>> {
>>>    devB->ref++;
>>>    {
>>> --------------------------------------->pushed onto another thread.
>>>    lock_privatelock
>>>    mr->ops->write();
>>>    unlock_privatelock
>>>    }
>>>    wait_for_completion();
>>>    devB->ref--;
>>> }
>>> This model can help c_p_m_rw() present as a SYNC API.  But currently,
>>> we mix biglock and private lock together, and wait_for_completion()
>>> maybe block the release of big lock, which finally causes deadlock. So
>>> we can not simply rely on this model.
>>> Instead, we need to classify the calling scene into three cases:
>>>   case1. lockA--dispatcher ---> lockB-dispatcher   //can use
>>> async+completion model
>>>   case2. lockA--dispatcher ---> biglock-dispatcher // sync, but can
>>> cause the nested lock of biglock
>>>   case3. biglock-dispacher ---> lockB-dispatcher  // async to avoid
>>> the lock sequence problem, (as to completion, it need to be placed
>>> outside the top level biglock, and it is hard to do so. Suggest to
>>> change to case 1. Or at present, just leave it async)
>>>
>>> This new model will require the biglock can be nested.
>>
>> I think changing to an async model is too complicated.  It's difficult
>> enough already.  Isn't dropping private locks + recursive big locks
>> sufficient?
>>
> I think that "dropping private locks + recursive big locks" just cover
> case 2. And most of the important, it dont describe case3 which break
> the rule of lock sequence "private-lock --> biglock". Scene:
> devA_lock-->(devX_with-biglock--->devB_lock).

Why not? devA will drop its local lock, devX will retake the big lock
recursively, devB will take its local lock.  In the end, we have biglock
-> devB.

> I just want to classify and post these cases to discuss. Maybe we can
> achieve without async.





-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function