Re: [patch 2/4] KVM: move coalesced_mmio locking to its own device

Avi Kivity
2009-05-20T15:22:44Z

Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

>> Yes it's correct but we'll get an endless stream of patches to 'fix' it
>> because it is so unorthodox.
>>
>
> Does it have to guarantee any kind of ordering in case of parallel
> writes by distincting vcpus? This is what it does now (so if a vcpu
> arrives first, the second will wait until the first is finished
> processing).
>

No.

> I suppose that is the responsability of the guest (if it does MMIO
> writes to a device in parallel it'll screwup in real HW too).
>

Yes.

> Because in such case, you can drop the mutex and protect only the kvm
> data.
>

One has to be before the other. The order doesn't matter, but both have
to be there.

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