From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51378)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1VGrJ1-0000VB-0B
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:10:13 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1VGrIv-0003cQ-1J
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:10:06 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33829)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1VGrIu-0003cE-QQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:10:00 -0400
Message-ID: <5225EDAF.2010302@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 16:09:51 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1377878817-4513-1-git-send-email-ncmike@ncultra.org>
	<5220CA9A.7050006@redhat.com>
	<CAGaKXu34URY3eiuS-Wd92p0Guc5FyXcqWDhLGu-Y86iyo+1w4g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGaKXu34URY3eiuS-Wd92p0Guc5FyXcqWDhLGu-Y86iyo+1w4g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] Convert ram_list to RCU DQ V2
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/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>
To: Mike Day <ncmike@ncultra.org>
Cc: Paul Mckenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Mathew Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>

Il 03/09/2013 15:56, Mike Day ha scritto:
>> > +    /* this implements a long-running RCU critical section.
>> > +     * When rcu reclaims in the code start to become numerous
>> > +     * it will be necessary to reduce the granularity of this critical
>> > +     * section.
>> > +     */
>>
>> Please add the same comment (and a rcu_read_lock/unlock pair replacing
>> the ramlist mutex) in ram_save_iterate, too.
> 
> Just double checking on this particular change. In practice ram_save
> manipulates the ram_list indirectly through ram_save_block. But I'm
> assuming you want this change because of the ram state info that
> persists between calls to ram_save (ram_list version in particular).

ram_list.version is not really a problem, but last_seen_block has to
persist across ram_save_block calls.

> Also, there is potential for the callback functions
> ram_control_*_iterate to manipulate the ram_list.

I think that's right now not possible (and they could use
rcu_read_lock/unlock as well).

Paolo