From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 2/5] ramlist mutex
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:16:30 -0300
Message-ID: <20110823121630.GA4261@amt.cnet>
References: <cover.1313552764.git.udeshpan@redhat.com>
	<8f99d56f3a48b6255cf70425bc435d8f231f5352.1313552764.git.udeshpan@redhat.com>
	<20110823091533.GA5207@amt.cnet> <20110823091726.GA5797@amt.cnet>
	<4E5391FC.1060703@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Umesh Deshpande <udeshpan@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, quintela@redhat.com
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E5391FC.1060703@redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: </archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org
Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 01:41:48PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 08/23/2011 11:17 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>>>  >    typedef struct RAMList {
> >>>>  >  +    QemuMutex mutex;
> >>>>  >        uint8_t *phys_dirty;
> >>>>  >        QLIST_HEAD(ram, RAMBlock) blocks;
> >>>>  >        QLIST_HEAD(, RAMBlock) blocks_mru;
> >>>
> >>>  A comment on what the mutex protects would be good.
> 
> Indeed, especially because Umesh wanted to use the ramlist+iothread
> combo as a rw-lock: iothread = read-lock for the I/O thread, ramlist
> = read-lock for the migration thread, together = exclusive (write)
> lock. But I think I talked him out of this. :)  It's not a bad idea
> in general, it just sounds like overkill in this case.
> 
> >And on the lock ordering.
> 
> I think when only two locks are involved, we can always assume
> iothread is outer and the other is inner.  Do you agree?
> 
> Paolo

Yep.