From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH] switch rangeset's lock to rwlock Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 21:53:38 +0100 Message-ID: <542B1852.9070904@gmail.com> References: <5413094B020000780003480E@mail.emea.novell.com> <20140919163202.GA9327@laptop.dumpdata.com> <542A8ADD020000780003AE5E@mail.emea.novell.com> <20140930120149.GA30119@deinos.phlegethon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4041768628214564241==" Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XZ4Qc-0003nf-Ks for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 20:53:47 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hi2so1035681wib.14 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:53:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140930120149.GA30119@deinos.phlegethon.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tim Deegan Cc: Keir Fraser , Ian Jackson , Ian Campbell , Jan Beulich , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============4041768628214564241== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040702000502050802060106" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040702000502050802060106 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Do the searches ever get long enough that a read lock helps? If any of the rangesets is getting large and making the searches slow then it would be quite easy to switch from linked list to red-black tree? I don't mind using a rwlock here though. Acked-by: Keir Fraser -- Keir > Tim Deegan > 30 September 2014 13:01 > > If Konrad's happy I am too. :) > Acked-by: Tim Deegan > > Tim. > > Jan Beulich > 30 September 2014 09:50 >>>> On 19.09.14 at 18:32, wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:55:07PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> As a general library routine, it should behave as efficiently as >>> possible, even if at present no significant contention is known here. >>> >> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk >> >> I am comfortable with this going to Xen 4.5. > > Anyone of you wanting to ack this then, or should I nevertheless > postpone it until after 4.5? > > Jan > >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich >>> --- >>> With the widened use of rangesets I'd like to re-suggest this change >>> which I had posted already a couple of years back. >>> >>> --- a/xen/common/rangeset.c >>> +++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c >>> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct rangeset { >>> >>> /* Number of ranges that can be allocated */ >>> long nr_ranges; >>> - spinlock_t lock; >>> + rwlock_t lock; >>> >>> /* Pretty-printing name. */ >>> char name[32]; >>> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range( >>> >>> ASSERT(s<= e); >>> >>> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >>> + write_lock(&r->lock); >>> >>> x = find_range(r, s); >>> y = find_range(r, e); >>> @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range( >>> } >>> >>> out: >>> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >>> + write_unlock(&r->lock); >>> return rc; >>> } >>> >>> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range( >>> >>> ASSERT(s<= e); >>> >>> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >>> + write_lock(&r->lock); >>> >>> x = find_range(r, s); >>> y = find_range(r, e); >>> @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range( >>> } >>> >>> out: >>> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >>> + write_unlock(&r->lock); >>> return rc; >>> } >>> >>> @@ -256,10 +256,10 @@ int rangeset_contains_range( >>> >>> ASSERT(s<= e); >>> >>> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >>> + read_lock(&r->lock); >>> x = find_range(r, s); >>> contains = (x&& (x->e>= e)); >>> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >>> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >>> >>> return contains; >>> } >>> @@ -272,10 +272,10 @@ int rangeset_overlaps_range( >>> >>> ASSERT(s<= e); >>> >>> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >>> + read_lock(&r->lock); >>> x = find_range(r, e); >>> overlaps = (x&& (s<= x->e)); >>> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >>> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >>> >>> return overlaps; >>> } >>> @@ -287,13 +287,13 @@ int rangeset_report_ranges( >>> struct range *x; >>> int rc = 0; >>> >>> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >>> + read_lock(&r->lock); >>> >>> for ( x = find_range(r, s); x&& (x->s<= e)&& !rc; x = next_range(r, x) ) >>> if ( x->e>= s ) >>> rc = cb(max(x->s, s), min(x->e, e), ctxt); >>> >>> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >>> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >>> >>> return rc; >>> } >>> @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ struct rangeset *rangeset_new( >>> if ( r == NULL ) >>> return NULL; >>> >>> - spin_lock_init(&r->lock); >>> + rwlock_init(&r->lock); >>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&r->range_list); >>> r->nr_ranges = -1; >>> >>> @@ -414,21 +414,21 @@ void rangeset_swap(struct rangeset *a, s >>> >>> if ( a< b ) >>> { >>> - spin_lock(&a->lock); >>> - spin_lock(&b->lock); >>> + write_lock(&a->lock); >>> + write_lock(&b->lock); >>> } >>> else >>> { >>> - spin_lock(&b->lock); >>> - spin_lock(&a->lock); >>> + write_lock(&b->lock); >>> + write_lock(&a->lock); >>> } >>> >>> list_splice_init(&a->range_list,&tmp); >>> list_splice_init(&b->range_list,&a->range_list); >>> list_splice(&tmp,&b->range_list); >>> >>> - spin_unlock(&a->lock); >>> - spin_unlock(&b->lock); >>> + write_unlock(&a->lock); >>> + write_unlock(&b->lock); >>> } >>> >>> /***************************** >>> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ void rangeset_printk( >>> int nr_printed = 0; >>> struct range *x; >>> >>> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >>> + read_lock(&r->lock); >>> >>> printk("%-10s {", r->name); >>> >>> @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ void rangeset_printk( >>> >>> printk(" }"); >>> >>> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >>> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >>> } >>> >>> void rangeset_domain_printk( >>> >>> >>> >>> switch rangeset's lock to rwlock >>> >>> As a general library routine, it should behave as efficiently as >>> possible, even if at present no significant contention is known here. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich >>> --- >>> With the widened use of rangesets I'd like to re-suggest this change >>> which I had posted already a couple of years back. >>> >>> --- a/xen/common/rangeset.c >>> +++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c >>> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct rangeset { >>> >>> /* Number of ranges that can be allocated */ >>> long nr_ranges; >>> - spinlock_t lock; >>> + rwlock_t lock; >>> >>> /* Pretty-printing name. */ >>> char name[32]; >>> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range( >>> >>> ASSERT(s<= e); >>> >>> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >>> + write_lock(&r->lock); >>> >>> x = find_range(r, s); >>> y = find_range(r, e); >>> @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range( >>> } >>> >>> out: >>> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >>> + write_unlock(&r->lock); >>> return rc; >>> } >>> >>> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range( >>> >>> ASSERT(s<= e); >>> >>> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >>> + write_lock(&r->lock); >>> >>> x = find_range(r, s); >>> y = find_range(r, e); >>> @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range( >>> } >>> >>> out: >>> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >>> + write_unlock(&r->lock); >>> return rc; >>> } >>> >>> @@ -256,10 +256,10 @@ int rangeset_contains_range( >>> >>> ASSERT(s<= e); >>> >>> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >>> + read_lock(&r->lock); >>> x = find_range(r, s); >>> contains = (x&& (x->e>= e)); >>> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >>> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >>> >>> return contains; >>> } >>> @@ -272,10 +272,10 @@ int rangeset_overlaps_range( >>> >>> ASSERT(s<= e); >>> >>> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >>> + read_lock(&r->lock); >>> x = find_range(r, e); >>> overlaps = (x&& (s<= x->e)); >>> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >>> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >>> >>> return overlaps; >>> } >>> @@ -287,13 +287,13 @@ int rangeset_report_ranges( >>> struct range *x; >>> int rc = 0; >>> >>> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >>> + read_lock(&r->lock); >>> >>> for ( x = find_range(r, s); x&& (x->s<= e)&& !rc; x = next_range(r, x) ) >>> if ( x->e>= s ) >>> rc = cb(max(x->s, s), min(x->e, e), ctxt); >>> >>> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >>> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >>> >>> return rc; >>> } >>> @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ struct rangeset *rangeset_new( >>> if ( r == NULL ) >>> return NULL; >>> >>> - spin_lock_init(&r->lock); >>> + rwlock_init(&r->lock); >>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&r->range_list); >>> r->nr_ranges = -1; >>> >>> @@ -414,21 +414,21 @@ void rangeset_swap(struct rangeset *a, s >>> >>> if ( a< b ) >>> { >>> - spin_lock(&a->lock); >>> - spin_lock(&b->lock); >>> + write_lock(&a->lock); >>> + write_lock(&b->lock); >>> } >>> else >>> { >>> - spin_lock(&b->lock); >>> - spin_lock(&a->lock); >>> + write_lock(&b->lock); >>> + write_lock(&a->lock); >>> } >>> >>> list_splice_init(&a->range_list,&tmp); >>> list_splice_init(&b->range_list,&a->range_list); >>> list_splice(&tmp,&b->range_list); >>> >>> - spin_unlock(&a->lock); >>> - spin_unlock(&b->lock); >>> + write_unlock(&a->lock); >>> + write_unlock(&b->lock); >>> } >>> >>> /***************************** >>> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ void rangeset_printk( >>> int nr_printed = 0; >>> struct range *x; >>> >>> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >>> + read_lock(&r->lock); >>> >>> printk("%-10s {", r->name); >>> >>> @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ void rangeset_printk( >>> >>> printk(" }"); >>> >>> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >>> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >>> } >>> >>> void rangeset_domain_printk( >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Xen-devel mailing list >>> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org >>> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel > > > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > 19 September 2014 17:32 > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:55:07PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> As a general library routine, it should behave as efficiently as >> possible, even if at present no significant contention is known here. >> > > Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > > I am comfortable with this going to Xen 4.5. > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich >> --- >> With the widened use of rangesets I'd like to re-suggest this change >> which I had posted already a couple of years back. >> >> --- a/xen/common/rangeset.c >> +++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c >> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct rangeset { >> >> /* Number of ranges that can be allocated */ >> long nr_ranges; >> - spinlock_t lock; >> + rwlock_t lock; >> >> /* Pretty-printing name. */ >> char name[32]; >> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range( >> >> ASSERT(s<= e); >> >> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >> + write_lock(&r->lock); >> >> x = find_range(r, s); >> y = find_range(r, e); >> @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range( >> } >> >> out: >> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >> + write_unlock(&r->lock); >> return rc; >> } >> >> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range( >> >> ASSERT(s<= e); >> >> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >> + write_lock(&r->lock); >> >> x = find_range(r, s); >> y = find_range(r, e); >> @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range( >> } >> >> out: >> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >> + write_unlock(&r->lock); >> return rc; >> } >> >> @@ -256,10 +256,10 @@ int rangeset_contains_range( >> >> ASSERT(s<= e); >> >> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >> + read_lock(&r->lock); >> x = find_range(r, s); >> contains = (x&& (x->e>= e)); >> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >> >> return contains; >> } >> @@ -272,10 +272,10 @@ int rangeset_overlaps_range( >> >> ASSERT(s<= e); >> >> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >> + read_lock(&r->lock); >> x = find_range(r, e); >> overlaps = (x&& (s<= x->e)); >> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >> >> return overlaps; >> } >> @@ -287,13 +287,13 @@ int rangeset_report_ranges( >> struct range *x; >> int rc = 0; >> >> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >> + read_lock(&r->lock); >> >> for ( x = find_range(r, s); x&& (x->s<= e)&& !rc; x = next_range(r, x) ) >> if ( x->e>= s ) >> rc = cb(max(x->s, s), min(x->e, e), ctxt); >> >> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >> >> return rc; >> } >> @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ struct rangeset *rangeset_new( >> if ( r == NULL ) >> return NULL; >> >> - spin_lock_init(&r->lock); >> + rwlock_init(&r->lock); >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&r->range_list); >> r->nr_ranges = -1; >> >> @@ -414,21 +414,21 @@ void rangeset_swap(struct rangeset *a, s >> >> if ( a< b ) >> { >> - spin_lock(&a->lock); >> - spin_lock(&b->lock); >> + write_lock(&a->lock); >> + write_lock(&b->lock); >> } >> else >> { >> - spin_lock(&b->lock); >> - spin_lock(&a->lock); >> + write_lock(&b->lock); >> + write_lock(&a->lock); >> } >> >> list_splice_init(&a->range_list,&tmp); >> list_splice_init(&b->range_list,&a->range_list); >> list_splice(&tmp,&b->range_list); >> >> - spin_unlock(&a->lock); >> - spin_unlock(&b->lock); >> + write_unlock(&a->lock); >> + write_unlock(&b->lock); >> } >> >> /***************************** >> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ void rangeset_printk( >> int nr_printed = 0; >> struct range *x; >> >> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >> + read_lock(&r->lock); >> >> printk("%-10s {", r->name); >> >> @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ void rangeset_printk( >> >> printk(" }"); >> >> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >> } >> >> void rangeset_domain_printk( >> >> >> > >> switch rangeset's lock to rwlock >> >> As a general library routine, it should behave as efficiently as >> possible, even if at present no significant contention is known here. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich >> --- >> With the widened use of rangesets I'd like to re-suggest this change >> which I had posted already a couple of years back. >> >> --- a/xen/common/rangeset.c >> +++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c >> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct rangeset { >> >> /* Number of ranges that can be allocated */ >> long nr_ranges; >> - spinlock_t lock; >> + rwlock_t lock; >> >> /* Pretty-printing name. */ >> char name[32]; >> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range( >> >> ASSERT(s<= e); >> >> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >> + write_lock(&r->lock); >> >> x = find_range(r, s); >> y = find_range(r, e); >> @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range( >> } >> >> out: >> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >> + write_unlock(&r->lock); >> return rc; >> } >> >> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range( >> >> ASSERT(s<= e); >> >> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >> + write_lock(&r->lock); >> >> x = find_range(r, s); >> y = find_range(r, e); >> @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range( >> } >> >> out: >> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >> + write_unlock(&r->lock); >> return rc; >> } >> >> @@ -256,10 +256,10 @@ int rangeset_contains_range( >> >> ASSERT(s<= e); >> >> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >> + read_lock(&r->lock); >> x = find_range(r, s); >> contains = (x&& (x->e>= e)); >> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >> >> return contains; >> } >> @@ -272,10 +272,10 @@ int rangeset_overlaps_range( >> >> ASSERT(s<= e); >> >> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >> + read_lock(&r->lock); >> x = find_range(r, e); >> overlaps = (x&& (s<= x->e)); >> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >> >> return overlaps; >> } >> @@ -287,13 +287,13 @@ int rangeset_report_ranges( >> struct range *x; >> int rc = 0; >> >> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >> + read_lock(&r->lock); >> >> for ( x = find_range(r, s); x&& (x->s<= e)&& !rc; x = next_range(r, x) ) >> if ( x->e>= s ) >> rc = cb(max(x->s, s), min(x->e, e), ctxt); >> >> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >> >> return rc; >> } >> @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ struct rangeset *rangeset_new( >> if ( r == NULL ) >> return NULL; >> >> - spin_lock_init(&r->lock); >> + rwlock_init(&r->lock); >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&r->range_list); >> r->nr_ranges = -1; >> >> @@ -414,21 +414,21 @@ void rangeset_swap(struct rangeset *a, s >> >> if ( a< b ) >> { >> - spin_lock(&a->lock); >> - spin_lock(&b->lock); >> + write_lock(&a->lock); >> + write_lock(&b->lock); >> } >> else >> { >> - spin_lock(&b->lock); >> - spin_lock(&a->lock); >> + write_lock(&b->lock); >> + write_lock(&a->lock); >> } >> >> list_splice_init(&a->range_list,&tmp); >> list_splice_init(&b->range_list,&a->range_list); >> list_splice(&tmp,&b->range_list); >> >> - spin_unlock(&a->lock); >> - spin_unlock(&b->lock); >> + write_unlock(&a->lock); >> + write_unlock(&b->lock); >> } >> >> /***************************** >> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ void rangeset_printk( >> int nr_printed = 0; >> struct range *x; >> >> - spin_lock(&r->lock); >> + read_lock(&r->lock); >> >> printk("%-10s {", r->name); >> >> @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ void rangeset_printk( >> >> printk(" }"); >> >> - spin_unlock(&r->lock); >> + read_unlock(&r->lock); >> } >> >> void rangeset_domain_printk( > >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-devel mailing list >> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org >> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel > > Jan Beulich > 12 September 2014 13:55 > As a general library routine, it should behave as efficiently as > possible, even if at present no significant contention is known here. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > --- > With the widened use of rangesets I'd like to re-suggest this change > which I had posted already a couple of years back. > > --- a/xen/common/rangeset.c > +++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct rangeset { > > /* Number of ranges that can be allocated */ > long nr_ranges; > - spinlock_t lock; > + rwlock_t lock; > > /* Pretty-printing name. */ > char name[32]; > @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range( > > ASSERT(s <= e); > > - spin_lock(&r->lock); > + write_lock(&r->lock); > > x = find_range(r, s); > y = find_range(r, e); > @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range( > } > > out: > - spin_unlock(&r->lock); > + write_unlock(&r->lock); > return rc; > } > > @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range( > > ASSERT(s <= e); > > - spin_lock(&r->lock); > + write_lock(&r->lock); > > x = find_range(r, s); > y = find_range(r, e); > @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range( > } > > out: > - spin_unlock(&r->lock); > + write_unlock(&r->lock); > return rc; > } > > @@ -256,10 +256,10 @@ int rangeset_contains_range( > > ASSERT(s <= e); > > - spin_lock(&r->lock); > + read_lock(&r->lock); > x = find_range(r, s); > contains = (x && (x->e >= e)); > - spin_unlock(&r->lock); > + read_unlock(&r->lock); > > return contains; > } > @@ -272,10 +272,10 @@ int rangeset_overlaps_range( > > ASSERT(s <= e); > > - spin_lock(&r->lock); > + read_lock(&r->lock); > x = find_range(r, e); > overlaps = (x && (s <= x->e)); > - spin_unlock(&r->lock); > + read_unlock(&r->lock); > > return overlaps; > } > @@ -287,13 +287,13 @@ int rangeset_report_ranges( > struct range *x; > int rc = 0; > > - spin_lock(&r->lock); > + read_lock(&r->lock); > > for ( x = find_range(r, s); x && (x->s <= e) && !rc; x = next_range(r, > x) ) > if ( x->e >= s ) > rc = cb(max(x->s, s), min(x->e, e), ctxt); > > - spin_unlock(&r->lock); > + read_unlock(&r->lock); > > return rc; > } > @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ struct rangeset *rangeset_new( > if ( r == NULL ) > return NULL; > > - spin_lock_init(&r->lock); > + rwlock_init(&r->lock); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&r->range_list); > r->nr_ranges = -1; > > @@ -414,21 +414,21 @@ void rangeset_swap(struct rangeset *a, s > > if ( a < b ) > { > - spin_lock(&a->lock); > - spin_lock(&b->lock); > + write_lock(&a->lock); > + write_lock(&b->lock); > } > else > { > - spin_lock(&b->lock); > - spin_lock(&a->lock); > + write_lock(&b->lock); > + write_lock(&a->lock); > } > > list_splice_init(&a->range_list, &tmp); > list_splice_init(&b->range_list, &a->range_list); > list_splice(&tmp, &b->range_list); > > - spin_unlock(&a->lock); > - spin_unlock(&b->lock); > + write_unlock(&a->lock); > + write_unlock(&b->lock); > } > > /***************************** > @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ void rangeset_printk( > int nr_printed = 0; > struct range *x; > > - spin_lock(&r->lock); > + read_lock(&r->lock); > > printk("%-10s {", r->name); > > @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ void rangeset_printk( > > printk(" }"); > > - spin_unlock(&r->lock); > + read_unlock(&r->lock); > } > > void rangeset_domain_printk( > > > --------------040702000502050802060106 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------020900000507090300020509" --------------020900000507090300020509 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Do the searches ever get long enough that a read lock helps? If any of the rangesets is getting large and making the searches slow then it would be quite easy to switch from linked list to red-black tree?

I don't mind using a rwlock here though.
Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>

 -- Keir
30 September 2014 13:01

If Konrad's happy I am too. :)
Acked-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>

Tim.

30 September 2014 09:50
On 19.09.14 at 18:32, <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:55:07PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:

As a general library routine, it should behave as efficiently as
possible, even if at present no significant contention is known here.


Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>

I am comfortable with this going to Xen 4.5.


Anyone of you wanting to ack this then, or should I nevertheless
postpone it until after 4.5?

Jan


Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
With the widened use of rangesets I'd like to re-suggest this change
which I had posted already a couple of years back.

--- a/xen/common/rangeset.c
+++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct rangeset {
 
     /* Number of ranges that can be allocated */
     long             nr_ranges;
-    spinlock_t       lock;
+    rwlock_t         lock;
 
     /* Pretty-printing name. */
     char             name[32];
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    write_lock(&r->lock);
 
     x = find_range(r, s);
     y = find_range(r, e);
@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range(
     }
 
  out:
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    write_unlock(&r->lock);
     return rc;
 }
 
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    write_lock(&r->lock);
 
     x = find_range(r, s);
     y = find_range(r, e);
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range(
     }
 
  out:
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    write_unlock(&r->lock);
     return rc;
 }
 
@@ -256,10 +256,10 @@ int rangeset_contains_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
     x = find_range(r, s);
     contains = (x && (x->e >= e));
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 
     return contains;
 }
@@ -272,10 +272,10 @@ int rangeset_overlaps_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
     x = find_range(r, e);
     overlaps = (x && (s <= x->e));
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 
     return overlaps;
 }
@@ -287,13 +287,13 @@ int rangeset_report_ranges(
     struct range *x;
     int rc = 0;
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
 
     for ( x = find_range(r, s); x && (x->s <= e) && !rc; x = next_range(r, x) )
         if ( x->e >= s )
             rc = cb(max(x->s, s), min(x->e, e), ctxt);
 
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 
     return rc;
 }
@@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ struct rangeset *rangeset_new(
     if ( r == NULL )
         return NULL;
 
-    spin_lock_init(&r->lock);
+    rwlock_init(&r->lock);
     INIT_LIST_HEAD(&r->range_list);
     r->nr_ranges = -1;
 
@@ -414,21 +414,21 @@ void rangeset_swap(struct rangeset *a, s
 
     if ( a < b )
     {
-        spin_lock(&a->lock);
-        spin_lock(&b->lock);
+        write_lock(&a->lock);
+        write_lock(&b->lock);
     }
     else
     {
-        spin_lock(&b->lock);
-        spin_lock(&a->lock);
+        write_lock(&b->lock);
+        write_lock(&a->lock);
     }
 
     list_splice_init(&a->range_list, &tmp);
     list_splice_init(&b->range_list, &a->range_list);
     list_splice(&tmp, &b->range_list);
 
-    spin_unlock(&a->lock);
-    spin_unlock(&b->lock);
+    write_unlock(&a->lock);
+    write_unlock(&b->lock);
 }
 
 /*****************************
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ void rangeset_printk(
     int nr_printed = 0;
     struct range *x;
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
 
     printk("%-10s {", r->name);
 
@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ void rangeset_printk(
 
     printk(" }");
 
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 }
 
 void rangeset_domain_printk(




switch rangeset's lock to rwlock

As a general library routine, it should behave as efficiently as
possible, even if at present no significant contention is known here.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
With the widened use of rangesets I'd like to re-suggest this change
which I had posted already a couple of years back.

--- a/xen/common/rangeset.c
+++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct rangeset {
 
     /* Number of ranges that can be allocated */
     long             nr_ranges;
-    spinlock_t       lock;
+    rwlock_t         lock;
 
     /* Pretty-printing name. */
     char             name[32];
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    write_lock(&r->lock);
 
     x = find_range(r, s);
     y = find_range(r, e);
@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range(
     }
 
  out:
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    write_unlock(&r->lock);
     return rc;
 }
 
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    write_lock(&r->lock);
 
     x = find_range(r, s);
     y = find_range(r, e);
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range(
     }
 
  out:
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    write_unlock(&r->lock);
     return rc;
 }
 
@@ -256,10 +256,10 @@ int rangeset_contains_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
     x = find_range(r, s);
     contains = (x && (x->e >= e));
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 
     return contains;
 }
@@ -272,10 +272,10 @@ int rangeset_overlaps_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
     x = find_range(r, e);
     overlaps = (x && (s <= x->e));
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 
     return overlaps;
 }
@@ -287,13 +287,13 @@ int rangeset_report_ranges(
     struct range *x;
     int rc = 0;
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
 
     for ( x = find_range(r, s); x && (x->s <= e) && !rc; x = next_range(r, x) )
         if ( x->e >= s )
             rc = cb(max(x->s, s), min(x->e, e), ctxt);
 
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 
     return rc;
 }
@@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ struct rangeset *rangeset_new(
     if ( r == NULL )
         return NULL;
 
-    spin_lock_init(&r->lock);
+    rwlock_init(&r->lock);
     INIT_LIST_HEAD(&r->range_list);
     r->nr_ranges = -1;
 
@@ -414,21 +414,21 @@ void rangeset_swap(struct rangeset *a, s
 
     if ( a < b )
     {
-        spin_lock(&a->lock);
-        spin_lock(&b->lock);
+        write_lock(&a->lock);
+        write_lock(&b->lock);
     }
     else
     {
-        spin_lock(&b->lock);
-        spin_lock(&a->lock);
+        write_lock(&b->lock);
+        write_lock(&a->lock);
     }
 
     list_splice_init(&a->range_list, &tmp);
     list_splice_init(&b->range_list, &a->range_list);
     list_splice(&tmp, &b->range_list);
 
-    spin_unlock(&a->lock);
-    spin_unlock(&b->lock);
+    write_unlock(&a->lock);
+    write_unlock(&b->lock);
 }
 
 /*****************************
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ void rangeset_printk(
     int nr_printed = 0;
     struct range *x;
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
 
     printk("%-10s {", r->name);
 
@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ void rangeset_printk(
 
     printk(" }");
 
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 }
 
 void rangeset_domain_printk(

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org 
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
19 September 2014 17:32
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:55:07PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:

As a general library routine, it should behave as efficiently as
possible, even if at present no significant contention is known here.



Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>

I am comfortable with this going to Xen 4.5.


Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
With the widened use of rangesets I'd like to re-suggest this change
which I had posted already a couple of years back.

--- a/xen/common/rangeset.c
+++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct rangeset {
 
     /* Number of ranges that can be allocated */
     long             nr_ranges;
-    spinlock_t       lock;
+    rwlock_t         lock;
 
     /* Pretty-printing name. */
     char             name[32];
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    write_lock(&r->lock);
 
     x = find_range(r, s);
     y = find_range(r, e);
@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range(
     }
 
  out:
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    write_unlock(&r->lock);
     return rc;
 }
 
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    write_lock(&r->lock);
 
     x = find_range(r, s);
     y = find_range(r, e);
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range(
     }
 
  out:
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    write_unlock(&r->lock);
     return rc;
 }
 
@@ -256,10 +256,10 @@ int rangeset_contains_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
     x = find_range(r, s);
     contains = (x && (x->e >= e));
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 
     return contains;
 }
@@ -272,10 +272,10 @@ int rangeset_overlaps_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
     x = find_range(r, e);
     overlaps = (x && (s <= x->e));
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 
     return overlaps;
 }
@@ -287,13 +287,13 @@ int rangeset_report_ranges(
     struct range *x;
     int rc = 0;
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
 
     for ( x = find_range(r, s); x && (x->s <= e) && !rc; x = next_range(r, x) )
         if ( x->e >= s )
             rc = cb(max(x->s, s), min(x->e, e), ctxt);
 
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 
     return rc;
 }
@@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ struct rangeset *rangeset_new(
     if ( r == NULL )
         return NULL;
 
-    spin_lock_init(&r->lock);
+    rwlock_init(&r->lock);
     INIT_LIST_HEAD(&r->range_list);
     r->nr_ranges = -1;
 
@@ -414,21 +414,21 @@ void rangeset_swap(struct rangeset *a, s
 
     if ( a < b )
     {
-        spin_lock(&a->lock);
-        spin_lock(&b->lock);
+        write_lock(&a->lock);
+        write_lock(&b->lock);
     }
     else
     {
-        spin_lock(&b->lock);
-        spin_lock(&a->lock);
+        write_lock(&b->lock);
+        write_lock(&a->lock);
     }
 
     list_splice_init(&a->range_list, &tmp);
     list_splice_init(&b->range_list, &a->range_list);
     list_splice(&tmp, &b->range_list);
 
-    spin_unlock(&a->lock);
-    spin_unlock(&b->lock);
+    write_unlock(&a->lock);
+    write_unlock(&b->lock);
 }
 
 /*****************************
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ void rangeset_printk(
     int nr_printed = 0;
     struct range *x;
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
 
     printk("%-10s {", r->name);
 
@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ void rangeset_printk(
 
     printk(" }");
 
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 }
 
 void rangeset_domain_printk(






switch rangeset's lock to rwlock

As a general library routine, it should behave as efficiently as
possible, even if at present no significant contention is known here.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
With the widened use of rangesets I'd like to re-suggest this change
which I had posted already a couple of years back.

--- a/xen/common/rangeset.c
+++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct rangeset {
 
     /* Number of ranges that can be allocated */
     long             nr_ranges;
-    spinlock_t       lock;
+    rwlock_t         lock;
 
     /* Pretty-printing name. */
     char             name[32];
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    write_lock(&r->lock);
 
     x = find_range(r, s);
     y = find_range(r, e);
@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range(
     }
 
  out:
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    write_unlock(&r->lock);
     return rc;
 }
 
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    write_lock(&r->lock);
 
     x = find_range(r, s);
     y = find_range(r, e);
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range(
     }
 
  out:
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    write_unlock(&r->lock);
     return rc;
 }
 
@@ -256,10 +256,10 @@ int rangeset_contains_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
     x = find_range(r, s);
     contains = (x && (x->e >= e));
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 
     return contains;
 }
@@ -272,10 +272,10 @@ int rangeset_overlaps_range(
 
     ASSERT(s <= e);
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
     x = find_range(r, e);
     overlaps = (x && (s <= x->e));
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 
     return overlaps;
 }
@@ -287,13 +287,13 @@ int rangeset_report_ranges(
     struct range *x;
     int rc = 0;
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
 
     for ( x = find_range(r, s); x && (x->s <= e) && !rc; x = next_range(r, x) )
         if ( x->e >= s )
             rc = cb(max(x->s, s), min(x->e, e), ctxt);
 
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 
     return rc;
 }
@@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ struct rangeset *rangeset_new(
     if ( r == NULL )
         return NULL;
 
-    spin_lock_init(&r->lock);
+    rwlock_init(&r->lock);
     INIT_LIST_HEAD(&r->range_list);
     r->nr_ranges = -1;
 
@@ -414,21 +414,21 @@ void rangeset_swap(struct rangeset *a, s
 
     if ( a < b )
     {
-        spin_lock(&a->lock);
-        spin_lock(&b->lock);
+        write_lock(&a->lock);
+        write_lock(&b->lock);
     }
     else
     {
-        spin_lock(&b->lock);
-        spin_lock(&a->lock);
+        write_lock(&b->lock);
+        write_lock(&a->lock);
     }
 
     list_splice_init(&a->range_list, &tmp);
     list_splice_init(&b->range_list, &a->range_list);
     list_splice(&tmp, &b->range_list);
 
-    spin_unlock(&a->lock);
-    spin_unlock(&b->lock);
+    write_unlock(&a->lock);
+    write_unlock(&b->lock);
 }
 
 /*****************************
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ void rangeset_printk(
     int nr_printed = 0;
     struct range *x;
 
-    spin_lock(&r->lock);
+    read_lock(&r->lock);
 
     printk("%-10s {", r->name);
 
@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ void rangeset_printk(
 
     printk(" }");
 
-    spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+    read_unlock(&r->lock);
 }
 
 void rangeset_domain_printk(



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
12 September 2014 13:55
As a general library routine, it should behave as efficiently as
possible, even if at present no significant contention is known here.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
With the widened use of rangesets I'd like to re-suggest this change
which I had posted already a couple of years back.

--- a/xen/common/rangeset.c
+++ b/xen/common/rangeset.c
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct rangeset {

/* Number of ranges that can be allocated */
long nr_ranges;
- spinlock_t lock;
+ rwlock_t lock;

/* Pretty-printing name. */
char name[32];
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range(

ASSERT(s <= e);

- spin_lock(&r->lock);
+ write_lock(&r->lock);

x = find_range(r, s);
y = find_range(r, e);
@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ int rangeset_add_range(
}

out:
- spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+ write_unlock(&r->lock);
return rc;
}

@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range(

ASSERT(s <= e);

- spin_lock(&r->lock);
+ write_lock(&r->lock);

x = find_range(r, s);
y = find_range(r, e);
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ int rangeset_remove_range(
}

out:
- spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+ write_unlock(&r->lock);
return rc;
}

@@ -256,10 +256,10 @@ int rangeset_contains_range(

ASSERT(s <= e);

- spin_lock(&r->lock);
+ read_lock(&r->lock);
x = find_range(r, s);
contains = (x && (x->e >= e));
- spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+ read_unlock(&r->lock);

return contains;
}
@@ -272,10 +272,10 @@ int rangeset_overlaps_range(

ASSERT(s <= e);

- spin_lock(&r->lock);
+ read_lock(&r->lock);
x = find_range(r, e);
overlaps = (x && (s <= x->e));
- spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+ read_unlock(&r->lock);

return overlaps;
}
@@ -287,13 +287,13 @@ int rangeset_report_ranges(
struct range *x;
int rc = 0;

- spin_lock(&r->lock);
+ read_lock(&r->lock);

for ( x = find_range(r, s); x && (x->s <= e) && !rc; x = next_range(r, x) )
if ( x->e >= s )
rc = cb(max(x->s, s), min(x->e, e), ctxt);

- spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+ read_unlock(&r->lock);

return rc;
}
@@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ struct rangeset *rangeset_new(
if ( r == NULL )
return NULL;

- spin_lock_init(&r->lock);
+ rwlock_init(&r->lock);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&r->range_list);
r->nr_ranges = -1;

@@ -414,21 +414,21 @@ void rangeset_swap(struct rangeset *a, s

if ( a < b )
{
- spin_lock(&a->lock);
- spin_lock(&b->lock);
+ write_lock(&a->lock);
+ write_lock(&b->lock);
}
else
{
- spin_lock(&b->lock);
- spin_lock(&a->lock);
+ write_lock(&b->lock);
+ write_lock(&a->lock);
}

list_splice_init(&a->range_list, &tmp);
list_splice_init(&b->range_list, &a->range_list);
list_splice(&tmp, &b->range_list);

- spin_unlock(&a->lock);
- spin_unlock(&b->lock);
+ write_unlock(&a->lock);
+ write_unlock(&b->lock);
}

/*****************************
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ void rangeset_printk(
int nr_printed = 0;
struct range *x;

- spin_lock(&r->lock);
+ read_lock(&r->lock);

printk("%-10s {", r->name);

@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ void rangeset_printk(

printk(" }");

- spin_unlock(&r->lock);
+ read_unlock(&r->lock);
}

void rangeset_domain_printk(



--------------020900000507090300020509 Content-Type: image/jpeg; x-apple-mail-type=stationery; name="compose-unknown-contact.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="compose-unknown-contact.jpg" /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEARwBHAAD/2wBDAAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEC AQEBAQEBAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgL/2wBDAQEBAQEBAQICAgICAgIC AgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgL/wAAR CAAZABkDAREAAhEBAxEB/8QAGAAAAwEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgcICQr/xAA0EAABAwMCAgUK BwAAAAAAAAACAQMEBQYRABITIQcUMUF2CBUXIjI2N0JRtVRWkZOV0dL/xAAYAQEAAwEAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAADAAEEAv/EACQRAAICAAQGAwAAAAAAAAAAAAABAhEDMrHREyExM0FxgfDx/9oA DAMBAAIRAxEAPwDuEt+gW/ULet6oVC3rfqNQqFv0OfPn1GhUqfOmzZtKZlS5UqZMaNwzNwiJ VIl7eXLCaZIGwBl3TY8epPx2+jy2ZNPjvkwc9uhW8j7nCPhvOsQliYIeS7cvCpp8o50qwrC4 v3lsNSDbdmTEhvs2tahxpfV3WnmbbozJEw/gwdadbYExVRXKEKoSdvJcaOSqxE7/AAiX0gXx +a69/JSf9alIlste0VzaNpeFrcT9KKymotyiaZ0KRCnzacoE7Kjzn4gi2KqUh3jqDHDHv4mR UfruTWlMzlVUKIVNp9GguEJnAh0+IZjyAiisgyRDnu5azS8miKqjOTVkKqS/psG37fo1Fbab eg25b8eZPeFJBBJSjMG5HjMeyihnaauZwe4OGiju13GAcpOwBeN+U8/IkGbsiS8b7ryogmbz hbyc9REROfZhERO5ETShjPtvpGqTUyLErytS4siSwx5x2tRH4hPOI0DkjZtaJtFxuVEbIUUi yeNujlBUJGbJN6nM/Cyf2Hf60YgjvKA+NPSP4gT7axpcPtr51YWJnYn9dnAQWl722p4ot37y zqnlfp6FrqbwawG8/9k= --------------020900000507090300020509-- --------------040702000502050802060106-- --===============4041768628214564241== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============4041768628214564241==--