From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: Count the number of dirty pages for dirty
 logging
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:52:51 +0900
Message-ID: <20111224115251.2aaa9549cb0a98de79f7d918@gmail.com>
References: <20111114182041.43570cdf.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
	<20111114182334.f57fbeae.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
	<4EC0E85F.80004@redhat.com>
	<4EF00F2F.6080305@oss.ntt.co.jp>
	<20111223111451.GD24308@amt.cnet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:35598 "EHLO
	mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754761Ab1LXCw7 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:52:59 -0500
Received: by iaeh11 with SMTP id h11so15961050iae.19
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:52:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20111223111451.GD24308@amt.cnet>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:14:51 -0200
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> wrote:

> > >btw mark_page_dirty() itself seems to assume mmu_lock protection that
> > >doesn't exist.  Marcelo?
> > >
> 
> Not mmu_lock protection, kvm->srcu protection.

But it just protects slot readers against updates and two, or more, threads
can call mark_page_dirty() concurrently?

What I am worring about here is the atomicity of bitmap updates.

	commit c8240bd6f0b4b1b21ffd36dd44114d05c7afe0c0
	Author: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
	Date:   Fri Oct 30 05:47:26 2009 +0000

		Use Little Endian for Dirty Bitmap

has changed set_bit() to the non-atomic version and nothing protects
dirty bits if mmu_lock is not held.

	The changelog has no explanation why using non-atomic version is safe.
	Some comment in the code may be worthwhile if it is really safe.

I want to see some clear reasoning now if possible.

	Takuya

> 
> > I want to hear the answer for this question.
> > 
> > Though I myself is reading the code, I cannot understand it thoroughly yet.
> > I wish if there were mmu_lock entry in locking.txt ...
> 
> Agreed.
> 

-- 
Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>