On 10/29/2012 11:46 AM, liu ping fan wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 10/29/2012 01:48 AM, Liu Ping Fan wrote: >>> For those address spaces which want to be able out of big lock, they >>> will be protected by their own local. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Liu Ping Fan <pingf...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> --- >>> memory.c | 11 ++++++++++- >>> memory.h | 5 ++++- >>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/memory.c b/memory.c >>> index 2f68d67..ff34aed 100644 >>> --- a/memory.c >>> +++ b/memory.c >>> @@ -1532,9 +1532,15 @@ void memory_listener_unregister(MemoryListener >>> *listener) >>> QTAILQ_REMOVE(&memory_listeners, listener, link); >>> } >>> >>> -void address_space_init(AddressSpace *as, MemoryRegion *root) >>> +void address_space_init(AddressSpace *as, MemoryRegion *root, bool lock) >> >> >> Why not always use the lock? Even if the big lock is taken, it doesn't >> hurt. And eventually all address spaces will be fine-grained. >> > I had thought only mmio is out of big lock's protection. While others > address space will take extra expense. So leave them until they are > ready to be out of big lock.
The other address spaces are pio (which also needs fine-grained locking) and the dma address spaces (which are like address_space_memory, except they are accessed via DMA instead of from the vcpu). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
