From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36001)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TVLvS-0004tN-2h
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:37:19 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TVLvN-0004ap-Rq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:37:09 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11930)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TVLvN-0004af-ID
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:37:05 -0500
Message-ID: <5097B2EA.6000907@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:36:58 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1351468127-15025-1-git-send-email-pingfank@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1351468127-15025-6-git-send-email-pingfank@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<508E4D45.5060106@redhat.com>
	<CAJnKYQmq3pA-QygCrLkEmKxu-w3sLxOqiAzNeOwdZBeJKqcewg@mail.gmail.com>
	<50929902.9050002@redhat.com> <5092C2FF.5070909@web.de>
	<CAJnKYQ=JpqnUWtB-2hghSB3uSSak=ACXTsbY=2C61-kLtP+QEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<50937DB2.3040302@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <50937DB2.3040302@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [patch v5 5/8] memory: introduce local lock for
	address space
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: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, liu ping fan <qemulist@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>

On 11/02/2012 10:00 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > 
> >> As I understand the series, as->lock == NULL means that we will never
> >> take any lock during dispatch as the caller is not yet ready for
> >> fine-grained locking. This prevents the problem - for PIO at least. But
> >> this series should break TCG as it calls into MMIO dispatch from the
> >> VCPU while holding the BQL.
> >>
> > What about add another condition "dispatch_type == DISPATCH_MMIO" to
> > tell this situation.
>
> An alternative pattern that we will also use for core services is to
> provide an additional entry point, one that indicates that the caller
> doesn't hold the BQL. Then we will gradually move things over until the
> existing entry point is obsolete.
>

I like it (or rather, least dislike it).  So we'd have
address_space_rw() and address_space_rw_unlocked() (or maybe,
address_space_rw() and address_space_rw_locked(), to indicate the
preferred way of doing things).

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.