On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2012-10-23 07:52, liu ping fan wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Avi Kivity <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 10/22/2012 11:23 AM, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
>>>> The broken device state is caused by releasing local lock before acquiring
>>>> big lock. To fix this issue, we have two choice:
>>>> 1.use busy flag to protect the state
>>>> The drawback is that we will introduce independent busy flag for each
>>>> independent device's logic unit.
>>>> 2.reload the device's state
>>>> The drawback is if the call chain is too deep, the action to reload
>>>> will
>>>> touch each layer. Also the reloading means to recaculate the
>>>> intermediate
>>>> result based on device's regs.
>>>>
>>>> This patch adopt the solution 1 to fix the issue.
>>>
>>> Doesn't the nested mmio patch detect this?
>>>
>> It will only record and fix the issue on one thread. But guest can
>> touch the emulated device on muti-threads.
>
> Sorry, what does that mean? A second VCPU accessing the device will
> simply be ignored when it races with another VCPU? Specifically
>
Yes, just ignored. For device which support many logic in parallel,
it should use independent busy flag for each logic
Regards,
pingfan
> + if (s->busy) {
> + return;
>
> and
>
> + uint64_t ret = 0;
> +
> + if (s->busy) {
> + return ret;
>
> is worrying me.
>
> Jan
>
> --
> Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
> Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
