From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] RFC: PCI using capabilitities Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:30:57 +0200 Message-ID: <20111211123057.GD11504@redhat.com> References: <87pqfzgy6p.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <1323358657.32487.9.camel@lappy> <4EE4726F.3010503@redhat.com> <1323597832.4063.4.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1323597832.4063.4.camel@lappy> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Sasha Levin Cc: Avi Kivity , kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:03:52PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 11:05 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > mmios are strictly ordered. > > > > Perhaps your printfs are reordered by buffering? Are they from > > different threads? Are you using coalesced mmio (which is still > > strictly ordered, if used correctly)? > > I print the queue_selector and queue_address in the printfs, even if > printfs were reordered they would be printing the data right, unlike > they do now. It's the data in the printfs that matters, not their order. > > Same vcpu thread with both accesses. > > Not using coalesced mmio. Not sure why this would matter, but is the BAR a prefetcheable one? Rusty's patch uses pci_iomap which maps a prefetcheable BAR as cacheable. > -- > > Sasha.