From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for 2013-10-01 Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:11:02 +0200 Message-ID: <20131002081101.GD1550@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> References: <8761th82jx.fsf@elfo.elfo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Juan Quintela , qemu-devel qemu-devel , KVM devel mailing list To: Peter Maydell Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com ([74.125.82.181]:36550 "EHLO mail-we0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752921Ab3JBILF (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Oct 2013 04:11:05 -0400 Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id p61so474945wes.26 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 01:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:17:35AM +0900, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 1 October 2013 23:54, Juan Quintela wrote: > > - Multicore on Multicore: > > TCG has no locking, no people really working there (Alex Graf?) > > Apart from the TCG locking issues (which are conceptually > tractable if anybody cares to try to fix them), the real complication > of multicore-on-multicore is how you handle discrepancies between > the memory models of host and guest, and in particular what > you do if your guest has a stronger memory model than your host: > do you insert barrier insns after every guest load/store? fall back > to not doing mp-on-mp? something else? If you want applications to always work then you need to insert barriers. It's expensive. Stefan