From: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH memory v1 1/1] memory: remove may_overlap property
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:26:34 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEgOgz6+JAJyeMWzYwea4nwRtGroSm6X8LvJyPtSa-aJnmdhuQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9u0=Ykr+OiMTRb+1Hgjie2W0DeB98XMT+5YyPuBB4VXA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 18 August 2014 01:14, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On 15 August 2014 08:17, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com> wrote:
>>>> If we were to repair this, a simpler and more effective check would be
>>>> to only assert collisions between same-priority regions. The fact that
>>>> colliding memory regions may-overlap is then left as implicit by the
>>>> fact that they have different priorities.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure your suggestion here would work, because priorities
>>> are only significant relative to other regions within the same
>>> container, whereas collisions can occur between two regions
>>> which don't have the same parent container and whose priorities are
>>> therefore not comparable. (For instance, consider [ A [ B C ] ]
>>> where A and B end up overlapping.)
>
>> But that is not a problem that is solved by the old may_overlap flag
>> is it? The check deleted here is not hierarchy aware so we have never
>> been able to detect that case. I think we should take a "clean slate"
>> approach on the implementation of the collision detection. Big change
>> is needed to get the check in the right place in code, whether it's
>> same-priority based or using may_overlap.
>
> Oops, I mistakenly thought this check was happening at the
> flattened-ranges point, but it's done when a subregion is
> added to a container. Maybe you're right that we should be
> able to allow overlaps if the priorities are different and not
> otherwise, then. But I'd rather we actually did that rather than
> just removing the check completely.
>
Right can we call it follow up though and get a merge on this one so
we can start fresh? With your new hierarchy problem we are just
compounding the reasons to get rid of this code.
Regards,
Peter
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-18 7:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-15 7:17 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH memory v1 1/1] memory: remove may_overlap property Peter Crosthwaite
2014-08-17 20:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-17 22:23 ` Peter Maydell
2014-08-17 22:28 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-18 0:14 ` Peter Crosthwaite
2014-08-18 7:23 ` Peter Maydell
2014-08-18 7:26 ` Peter Crosthwaite [this message]
2014-08-18 7:33 ` Peter Maydell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAEgOgz6+JAJyeMWzYwea4nwRtGroSm6X8LvJyPtSa-aJnmdhuQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).