On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 03:24:26PM +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > > > On 12/02/18 15:17, Zhongze Liu wrote: > > Hi Julien, > > Hi, > > > > > 2018-02-12 23:09 GMT+08:00 Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 12/02/18 14:52, Zhongze Liu wrote: > > > > > > > > 2018-02-08 0:54 GMT+08:00 Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>: > > > > > > > > > > On 07/02/18 16:27, Zhongze Liu wrote: > > > > > > > > It seems that I mistakenly use transaction as a global lock. Now I don't > > > > have > > > > any reasons not putting the unmap out of the transaction, but this will > > > > break > > > > the original transaction into two, and I do think that we need some > > > > explicit > > > > locking here. > > > > > > > > > Can you explain why you need specific locking here? What are you trying to > > > protect? Are you trying to protect against two process doing the unmap? > > > > > > > Yes. > > I don't think you have to worry about the locking here. With the current > interface, the regions cannot be modified after the guest has booted. So the > addresses will always stay valid. > > This code path should never be called concurrently, as a lot of code in > libxl, so I think someone else will take care about that for you (I will let > Wei confirm here).
I think you mean "can be called concurrently but locking is taken care of". If two processes / threads with different libxl ctx (not just xl. xl has a global lock) try to manipulate the same domain, libxl APIs use file locks. For the same same process, multiple threads but sharing one libxl_ctx there is pthread mutex in libxl_ctx. In a way, "someone else" (in libxl code) has already taken care of the locking. Fundamentally We need to assume the code can be called concurrently. It would be good thing if this is taken into consideration if new code is added. Wei. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xenemail@example.com https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel