From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39808)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TEGws-0002Pc-4G
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:52:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TEGwo-0000zW-2E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:52:01 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53087)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TEGwn-0000zS-Ou
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:51:57 -0400
Message-ID: <505995B7.4010709@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:51:51 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@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> <50598EB2.5040101@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <50598EB2.5040101@redhat.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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, liu ping fan <qemulist@gmail.com>, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Il 19/09/2012 11:21, Avi Kivity ha scritto:
>> > 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 would say device -> backend.  It's natural if the backend is the timer
> subsystem, so extend it from there to the block and network layers.  Of
> course callbacks want it to be the other way round.

Yes, that's what I wasn't sure about.  In many cases I believe callbacks
can just release the backend lock.  It works for timers, for example:

    for(;;) {
        ts = clock->active_timers;
        if (!qemu_timer_expired_ns(ts, current_time)) {
            break;
        }
        /* remove timer from the list before calling the callback */
        clock->active_timers = ts->next;
        ts->next = NULL;

        /* run the callback (the timer list can be modified) */
-       ts->cb(ts->opaque);
+       cb = ts->cb;
+       opaque = ts->opaque;
+       unlock();
+       cb(opaque);
+       lock();
    }

(The hunch is that ts could be deleted exactly at the moment the
callback is unlocked.  This can be solved with ref/unref on the opaque
value, as you mention below).

Paolo

> We could solve the callback problem in the same way we're using for mmio
> callbacks.  When providing the callback, give the subsystem ->ref() and
> ->unref() methods.  As long as a callback is pending, the subsystem
> holds a reference.  Once the callback has been invoked or cancelled, the
> reference can be released.