On 08/09/2012 10:27 AM, liu ping fan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 08/08/2012 09:25 AM, Liu Ping Fan wrote: >>> From: Liu Ping Fan <pingfank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> >> Please explain the motivation. AFAICT, the big qemu lock is sufficient. >> > Oh, this is one of the series locks for the removal of big qemu lock. Why do you want to remove the big qemu lock? Even now it is not heavily contended. We should focus on fixing the cases where is it contended, instead of removing it completely, which is sure to make further development harder and is likely to introduce locking bugs. > The degradation of big lock will take several steps, including to > introduce device's private lock. Till then, when the device add path > from iothread and the remove path in io-dispatch is out of the big > qemu lock. We need this extra lock. > > These series is too big, so I send out the 1st phase for review. Even the first phase is too big. -- 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
