From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50307)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TEcjK-00039Q-NB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:07:36 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TEcjC-0004mf-DI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:07:30 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4364)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TEcjC-0004mP-58
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:07:22 -0400
Message-ID: <505ADCC4.5010001@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:07:16 +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>
	<50598F0C.2040301@redhat.com>
	<CAJnKYQnqi+QyqiP6029F_yPDS5kbr1pOhDEGKkH+_8SHUOjLfg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJnKYQnqi+QyqiP6029F_yPDS5kbr1pOhDEGKkH+_8SHUOjLfg@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 09/20/2012 10:51 AM, liu ping fan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> LOCK(local lock)
> .......................
> LOCK(big lock)
> Access timer/block/network subsystem
> UNLOCK(big lock)
> .....................
> UNLOCK(local lock)

This is an invalid sequence.  Either the subsystem has to be fine-grain
locked, or the lock order has to be reversed.

Before we finish subsystem conversion, an mmio dispatcher may look like:

dev_write(...)
{
    lock(s->lock)
    switch (addr) {
        case REGA:
            ...
        case REGB:
            ...
        case REGC:
            unlock(s->lock)
            lock(big lock)
            lock(s->lock)
            qemu_mod_timer()
            unlock(bit lock)
            break;
        ...
    }
    unlock(s->lock)
}



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