From: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>
To: Albert Esteve <aesteve@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: stefanha@redhat.com, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
peterx@redhat.com, Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>,
Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de>,
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] memory.c: improve refcounting for RAM vs MMIO regions
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 14:32:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f35f2cfc-2bc1-40b4-8dd2-f7ac34cbd317@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250723121920.1184928-1-aesteve@redhat.com>
Hi,
On 23/7/25 14:19, Albert Esteve wrote:
> In the last version of the SHMEM MAP/UNMAP [1] there was a
> comment [2] from Stefan about the lifecycle of the memory
> regions.
>
> After some discussion, David Hildenbrand proposed
> to detect RAM regions and handle refcounting differently
> to clear the initial concern. This RFC patch is
> meant for gathering feedback from others
> (i.e., Paolo Bonzini and Peter Xu).
>
> [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/qemu-devel/list/?series=460121
> [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/comment/3528600/
>
> ---
>
> This patch enhances memory_region_ref() and memory_region_unref()
> to handle RAM and MMIO memory regions differently, improving
> reference counting semantics.
>
> RAM regions now reference/unreference the memory region object
> itself, while MMIO continue to reference/unreference the owner
> device as before.
>
> An additional qtest has been added to stress the memory
> lifecycle. All tests pass as these changes keep backward
> compatibility (prior behaviour is kept for MMIO regions).
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com >
> Signed-off-by: Albert Esteve <aesteve@redhat.com>
> ---
> system/memory.c | 22 +++++++++++++----
> tests/qtest/ivshmem-test.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/system/memory.c b/system/memory.c
> index 5646547940..48ab6e5592 100644
> --- a/system/memory.c
> +++ b/system/memory.c
> @@ -1826,6 +1826,14 @@ Object *memory_region_owner(MemoryRegion *mr)
>
> void memory_region_ref(MemoryRegion *mr)
> {
> + /* Regions without an owner are considered static. */
> + if (!mr || !mr->owner) {
> + return;
> + }
> + if (mr->ram) {
> + object_ref(OBJECT(mr));
> + return;
> + }
> /* MMIO callbacks most likely will access data that belongs
> * to the owner, hence the need to ref/unref the owner whenever
> * the memory region is in use.
> @@ -1836,16 +1844,20 @@ void memory_region_ref(MemoryRegion *mr)
> * Memory regions without an owner are supposed to never go away;
What are the use cases for MRs without QOM owner?
> * we do not ref/unref them because it slows down DMA sensibly.
> */
> - if (mr && mr->owner) {
> - object_ref(mr->owner);
> - }
> + object_ref(mr->owner);
> }
>
> void memory_region_unref(MemoryRegion *mr)
> {
> - if (mr && mr->owner) {
> - object_unref(mr->owner);
> + /* Regions without an owner are considered static. */
> + if (!mr || !mr->owner) {
> + return;
> + }
> + if (mr->ram) {
> + object_unref(OBJECT(mr));
> + return;
> }
> + object_unref(mr->owner);
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-23 12:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-23 12:19 [RFC] memory.c: improve refcounting for RAM vs MMIO regions Albert Esteve
2025-07-23 12:32 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé [this message]
2025-07-23 12:42 ` Albert Esteve
2025-07-23 12:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-07-23 12:53 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-07-23 14:59 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-07-23 12:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-07-23 12:48 ` Albert Esteve
2025-07-23 12:54 ` David Hildenbrand
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=f35f2cfc-2bc1-40b4-8dd2-f7ac34cbd317@linaro.org \
--to=philmd@linaro.org \
--cc=aesteve@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=farosas@suse.de \
--cc=lvivier@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
/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).