From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44822)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TEGVH-0001bx-Gd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:23:37 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TEGVG-0007LJ-F9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:23:31 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27610)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TEGVG-0007LF-5c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:23:30 -0400
Message-ID: <50598F0C.2040301@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:23:24 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJnKYQmv=k9QhcTfVzXcdqnFxZiCsZTehC8pGWeVCfBq7FX0zg@mail.gmail.com>
	<50597D1F.3070607@redhat.com>
	<CAJnKYQ=yKMNLtsQGu3ABvug+XrVr9DbGnKq3DhWE8koLKWw6Aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<50598B58.4010704@redhat.com>
	<CAJnKYQkGkQ+8Y3R7Z9gJmMFhPen9ygD01aMwPxmMoVcGOHws5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<50598D0D.2090608@redhat.com>
	<CAJnKYQk6ZhssCcEV1e_h27YkO4qvqqgTM_QprqCXjcZK2WmikA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJnKYQk6ZhssCcEV1e_h27YkO4qvqqgTM_QprqCXjcZK2WmikA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [big lock] Discussion about the convention of
 device's DMA each other after breaking down biglock
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: liu ping fan <qemulist@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>

On 09/19/2012 12:19 PM, liu ping fan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Il 19/09/2012 11:11, liu ping fan ha scritto:
>>>> > Why not? devA will drop its local lock, devX will retake the big lock
>>>> > recursively, devB will take its local lock.  In the end, we have biglock
>>>> > -> devB.
>>>> >
>>> But when adopting local lock, we assume take local lock, then biglock.
>>
>> No, because the local lock will be dropped before taking the biglock.
>> The order must always be coarse->fine.
>>
> But if we takes coarse firstly, then the mmio-dispatcher will still
> contend for the big lock against each other.

Can you detail the sequence?

> 
>> I don't know if the front-end (device) lock should come before or after
>> the back-end (e.g. netdev) lock in the hierarchy, but that's another story.
>>
> I think fine->coarse may be the rule, since for some code path, it is
> not necessary to take coarse lock.

coarse->fine doesn't mean you have to take the coarse lock.

Valid:
  lock(coarse)
  lock(fine)

Valid:
  lock(find)

Valid:
  lock(coarse)

Invalid:
  lock(fine)
  lock(coarse)


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function