From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48319)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TEHBM-0007LO-Kw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:07:01 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TEHBL-0006Jz-JM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:07:00 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:21111)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TEHBL-0006Jv-A4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:06:59 -0400
Message-ID: <5059993C.1070506@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:06:52 +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> <50598EB2.5040101@redhat.com>
	<505995B7.4010709@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <505995B7.4010709@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: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@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

On 09/19/2012 12:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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).

Are you saying that this works as is or not?  It does seem broken wrt
deletion; after qemu_del_timer() completes the caller expects the
callback not to be called.

This isn't trivial to guarantee, we need something like

   dispatch_timer():
      pending += 1
      timer.ref()
      drop lock
      timer.cb()
      take lock
      timer.unref()
      pending -= 1
      notify

   del_timer():
      take lock
      timer.unlink()
      while pending:
          wait for notification
      drop lock

but, if del_timer is called with the device lock held, we deadlock. ugh.

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