From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] exec.c: use refcnt to protect device during dispatching
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:18:35 +0200
Message-ID: <500FB9EB.5010306@redhat.com>
References: <1343187070-27371-1-git-send-email-qemulist@gmail.com> <1343187070-27371-3-git-send-email-qemulist@gmail.com> <CAJSP0QXN5ZPtTz9SPxQP=U4kYfXpumB+mf5Xx2K+ko9EScxN9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJnKYQnW0AXJXyTq+2ZahBfJDX5fZ8aftWwXMwR3u_c=kOBQOg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: liu ping fan <qemulist@gmail.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-gg0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:36047 "EHLO
	mail-gg0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932767Ab2GYJSr (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 25 Jul 2012 05:18:47 -0400
Received: by gglu4 with SMTP id u4so449900ggl.19
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 02:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJnKYQnW0AXJXyTq+2ZahBfJDX5fZ8aftWwXMwR3u_c=kOBQOg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Il 25/07/2012 10:12, liu ping fan ha scritto:
>>> >> +        qemu_rwlock_rdlock_devtree();
>>> >>          section = phys_page_find(page >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS);
>>> >> +        if (!(memory_region_is_ram(section->mr) ||
>>> >> +            memory_region_is_romd(section->mr)) && !is_write) {
>>> >> +            bk = get_backend(section->mr, addr);
>>> >> +            object_ref(bk);
>>> >> +        } else if (!memory_region_is_ram(section->mr) && is_write) {
>>> >> +            bk = get_backend(section->mr, addr);
>>> >> +            object_ref(bk);
>>> >> +        }
>>> >> +        qemu_rwlock_unlock_devtree();
>>> >>
>>> >>          if (is_write) {
>>> >>              if (!memory_region_is_ram(section->mr)) {
>>> >> @@ -3426,6 +3462,7 @@ void cpu_physical_memory_rw(target_phys_addr_t addr, uint8_t *buf,
>>> >>                      io_mem_write(section->mr, addr1, val, 1);
>>> >>                      l = 1;
>>> >>                  }
>>> >> +                object_unref(bk);
>> >
>> > Currently object_ref()/object_unref() are not atomic.  Will you send
> We obey the rule:
>            rdlock->search->ref_get,
>            wrlock->remove ->ref_put
> So can  it causes problem if object_ref()/object_unref()  are not atomic?

Yes, two CPUs can perform object_ref at the same time.

You can find a header file for atomic operations here:
https://github.com/bonzini/qemu/commit/atomics.patch

Paolo