From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Liu Ping Fan <pingfank@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
liu ping fan <qemulist@gmail.com>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 10/10] qdev: fix create in place obj's life cycle problem
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:57:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5041CDEC.4070105@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5041C7FE.5090306@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4104 bytes --]
On 2012-09-01 10:31, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 10:49 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's experiment with refcounting MemoryRegion. We can move the entire
>>> contents of MemoryRegion to MemoryRegionImpl, add a reference count (to
>>> MemoryRegionImpl), and change MemoryRegion to contain a pointer to the
>>> refcounted MemoryRegionImpl:
>>>
>>> struct MemoryRegion {
>>> struct MemoryRegionImpl *impl;
>>> };
>>>
>>> struct MemoryRegionImpl {
>>> atomic int refs;
>>> ...
>>> };
>>>
>>> The memory core can then store MemoryRegion copies (with elevated
>>> refcounts) instead of pointers. Devices can destroy MemoryRegions at
>>> any time, the implementation will not go away. However, what of the
>>> opaque stored in MemoryRegionImpl? It becomes a dangling pointer.
>>>
>>> One way out is to add a lock to MemoryRegionImpl. Dispatch takes the
>>> lock, examines the ->enabled member, and bails out if it is cleared.
>>> The (MemoryRegion, not MemoryRegionImpl) destructor also takes the lock,
>>> clears ->enabled, releases the lock, and drops the reference.
>>
>> That means holding the MemoryRegionImpl lock across the handler call?
>
> Blech. As you said on the other side of this thread, we must not take a
> coarse grained lock within a fine grained one, and
> MemoryRegionImpl::lock is as fine as they get.
Not sure what you compare here. MemoryRegionImpl::lock would be per
memory region, so with finer scope than the BQL but with similar scope
like a per-device lock.
>
>>>
>>> The advantage to this scheme is that all changes are localized to the
>>> memory core, no need for a full sweep. It is a little complicated, but
>>> we may be able to simplify it (or find another one).
>>
>> May work. We just need to detect if memory region tries to delete itself
>> from its handler to prevent the deadlock.
>
> Those types of hacks are fragile. IMO it just demonstrates what I said
> earlier (then tried to disprove with this): if we call an opaque's
> method, we must refcount or otherwise lock that opaque. No way around it.
But that still doesn't solve the problem that we need to lock down the
*state* of the opaque during dispatch /wrt to memory region changes.
Just ensuring its existence is not enough unless we declare memory
region transactions to be asynchronous - and adapt all users.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides
>>>>>> MMIO and PIO dispatching, it will haunt us for file or event handlers,
>>>>>> any kind of callbacks etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Context A Context B
>>>>>> --------- ---------
>>>>>> object = lookup()
>>>>>> deregister(object)
>>>>>> modify(object) -> invalid state
>>>>>> ... use(object)
>>>>>> modify(object) -> valid state
>>>>>> register(object)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And with "object" I'm not talking about QOM but any data structure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Context B
>>>>> ---------
>>>>> rcu_read_lock()
>>>>> object = lookup()
>>>>> if (object) {
>>>>> ref(object)
>>>>> }
>>>>> rcu_read_unlock()
>>>>>
>>>>> use(object)
>>>>>
>>>>> unref(object)
>>>>>
>>>>> (substitute locking scheme to conform to taste and/or dietary
>>>>> restrictions)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> + wait for refcount(object) == 0 in deregister(object). That's what I'm
>>>> proposing.
>>>
>>> Consider timer_del() called from a timer callback. It's often not doable.
>>
>> This is inherently synchronous already (when working against the same
>> alarm timer backend). We can detect this in timer_del and skip waiting,
>> as in the above scenario.
>
> It can always be broken. The timer callback takes the device lock to
> update the device. The device mmio handler, holding the device lock,
> takes the timer lock to timer_mod. Deadlock.
Well, how is this solved in Linux? By waiting on the callback in
hrtimer_cancel. Not by wait_on_magic_opaque (well, there is even no
opaque in the hrtimer API).
Jan
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 259 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-01 8:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-24 9:49 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/10] rework on hot unplug Liu Ping Fan
2012-08-24 9:49 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/10] qom: add, remove of link property need to ref, unref its target Liu Ping Fan
2012-08-24 14:52 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-24 9:49 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/10] qdev: change iterator callback seq Liu Ping Fan
2012-08-24 9:49 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/10] qom: export object_property_is_child, object_property_is_link Liu Ping Fan
2012-08-24 14:51 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-25 7:43 ` liu ping fan
2012-08-25 8:04 ` Blue Swirl
2012-08-24 9:49 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/10] qdev: introduce new interface to remove composite sub-tree Liu Ping Fan
2012-08-24 9:49 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/10] qdev: finalize of qbus, qdev will not the right place to free children Liu Ping Fan
2012-08-24 14:50 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-24 9:49 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 06/10] qom: expose object_property_del_child Liu Ping Fan
2012-08-24 14:44 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-24 9:49 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/10] unplug: using new intf qdev_delete_subtree in acpi_piix_eject_slot Liu Ping Fan
2012-08-24 10:24 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-25 7:05 ` liu ping fan
2012-08-24 9:49 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/10] qdev: rename qdev_unplug to qdev_unplug_req Liu Ping Fan
2012-08-24 14:48 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-24 9:49 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/10] mon: release dev's ref hold by qdev_get_peripheral Liu Ping Fan
2012-08-24 9:49 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 10/10] qdev: fix create in place obj's life cycle problem Liu Ping Fan
2012-08-24 14:42 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-25 7:42 ` liu ping fan
2012-08-27 7:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-27 7:47 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-27 8:17 ` liu ping fan
2012-08-27 8:27 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-27 17:09 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-27 17:14 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-27 18:09 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-27 18:17 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-27 18:20 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-27 18:39 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-27 18:52 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-27 19:38 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-27 20:53 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-28 1:01 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-29 17:13 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-29 17:21 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-29 17:27 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-29 17:41 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-09-03 9:09 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-28 3:09 ` liu ping fan
2012-08-28 3:38 ` liu ping fan
2012-08-28 9:42 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-28 10:05 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-29 17:23 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-29 17:30 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-29 17:40 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-29 17:49 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-09-01 8:31 ` Avi Kivity
2012-09-01 8:57 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2012-09-01 9:30 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-30 5:54 ` liu ping fan
2012-08-30 7:08 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-30 7:47 ` liu ping fan
2012-09-01 8:46 ` Avi Kivity
2012-09-03 7:44 ` liu ping fan
2012-09-03 8:52 ` Avi Kivity
2012-09-03 10:06 ` liu ping fan
2012-09-03 10:16 ` Avi Kivity
2012-09-04 2:33 ` liu ping fan
2012-09-04 2:34 ` liu ping fan
2012-09-05 8:19 ` liu ping fan
2012-09-05 9:52 ` Avi Kivity
2012-09-05 10:36 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-09-05 10:53 ` Avi Kivity
2012-09-05 11:11 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-09-05 11:25 ` Avi Kivity
2012-09-05 12:02 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-09-05 12:17 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-27 13:19 ` Anthony Liguori
2012-08-27 15:02 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-27 15:14 ` Anthony Liguori
2012-08-27 15:26 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-27 16:24 ` Anthony Liguori
2012-08-27 16:59 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-27 18:35 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-27 19:17 ` Anthony Liguori
2012-08-27 19:22 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-08-27 20:58 ` Avi Kivity
2012-08-27 21:34 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-08-27 18:27 ` Avi Kivity
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5041CDEC.4070105@web.de \
--to=jan.kiszka@web.de \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=pingfank@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemulist@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).