On 18/08/2017 06:02, Peter Xu wrote:
>> The patch below is okay. However, vtd_switch_address_space is
>> expensive, which is why I suggested the bottom half.
> But still, shall we just do it this way? It looks cleaner.
>
> For the slowness (as I mentioned below), one thing to mention is that,
> t
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:40:48AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 17/08/2017 07:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > In vtd_switch_address_space() we did the memory region switch, however
> > it's possible that the caller of it has not taken the BQL at all. Make
> > sure we have it.
> >
> > CC: Paolo Bonzini
On 17/08/2017 07:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> In vtd_switch_address_space() we did the memory region switch, however
> it's possible that the caller of it has not taken the BQL at all. Make
> sure we have it.
>
> CC: Paolo Bonzini
> CC: Jason Wang
> CC: Michael S. Tsirkin
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu
>
In vtd_switch_address_space() we did the memory region switch, however
it's possible that the caller of it has not taken the BQL at all. Make
sure we have it.
CC: Paolo Bonzini
CC: Jason Wang
CC: Michael S. Tsirkin
Signed-off-by: Peter Xu
---
Paolo: I noticed this qemu_mutex_iothread_locked()
