On 07/26/2012 04:06 PM, liu ping fan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 07/25/2012 01:58 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>> while (len > 0) {
>>>> page = addr & TARGET_PAGE_MASK;
>>>> l = (page + TARGET_PAGE_SIZE) - addr;
>>>> if (l > len)
>>>> l = len;
>>>> +
>>>> + qemu_rwlock_rdlock_devtree();
>>>> section = phys_page_find(page >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS);
>>>
>>> Does the devtree lock also protect the data structures accessed by
>>> phys_page_find()? Seems wrong.
>>
>> The right way is to object_ref() in core_region_add() and object_unref()
>> in core_region_del(). We're guaranteed that mr->object is alive during
>> _add(), and DeviceClass::unmap() ensures that the extra ref doesn't
>> block destruction.
>>
> OK, I see. I will try in this way. But when
> memory_region_destroy()->..->core_region_del(), should we reset the
> lp.ptr to phys_section_unassigned , otherwise, if using removed
> target_phys_addr_t, we will still get the pointer to invalid
> MemoryRegion?
The intent was to use rcu, so when we rebuild phys_map we build it into
a new tree, use rcu_assign_pointer() to switch into the new tree, then
synchronize_rcu() and drop the old tree.
Since we don't have rcu yet we can emulate it with a lock. We can start
with a simple mutex around the lookup and rebuild, then switch to rwlock
or rcu if needed.
(without the lock or rcu, just changing lp.ptr is dangerous, since it is
a bit field)
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
