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

Marcelo Tosatti
2009-06-01T21:23:42Z

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:14:36PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> Move coalesced_mmio locking to its own device, instead of relying on
>> kvm->lock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
>>
>> Index: kvm-irqlock/virt/kvm/coalesced_mmio.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- kvm-irqlock.orig/virt/kvm/coalesced_mmio.c
>> +++ kvm-irqlock/virt/kvm/coalesced_mmio.c
>> @@ -26,9 +26,7 @@ static int coalesced_mmio_in_range(struc
>> if (!is_write)
>> return 0;
>> - /* kvm->lock is taken by the caller and must be not released before
>> - * dev.read/write
>> - */
>> + spin_lock(&dev->lock);
>>
>
> This unbalanced locking is still very displeasing. At a minimum you
> need a sparse annotation to indicate it.
>
> But I think it really indicates a problem with the io_device API.
>
> Potential solutions:
> - fold in_range() into ->write and ->read. Make those functions
> responsible for both determining whether they can handle the range and
> performing the I/O.
> - have a separate rwlock for the device list.

IMO the problem is the coalesced_mmio device. The unbalanced locking is
a result of the abuse of the in_range() and read/write() methods.

Normally you'd expect parallel accesses to in_range() to be allowed,
since its just checking whether (aha) the access is in range, returning
a pointer to the device if positive. Now read/write() are the ones who
need serialization, since they touch the device internal state.

coalesced_mmio abuses in_range() to do more things than it should.

Ideally we should fix coalesced_mmio, but i'm not going to do that now
(sorry, not confident in changing it without seeing go through intense
torture testing).

That said, is sparse annotation enough the convince you?