On 27.08.24 19:57, Peter Xu wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 10:37:15AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:/* Called with ram_list.mutex held */ -static void dirty_memory_extend(ram_addr_t old_ram_size, - ram_addr_t new_ram_size) +static void dirty_memory_extend(ram_addr_t new_ram_size) { - ram_addr_t old_num_blocks = DIV_ROUND_UP(old_ram_size, - DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); ram_addr_t new_num_blocks = DIV_ROUND_UP(new_ram_size, DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); int i;- /* Only need to extend if block count increased */- if (new_num_blocks <= old_num_blocks) { - return; - }One nitpick here: IMHO we could move the n_blocks cache in ram_list instead, then we keep the check here and avoid caching it three times with the same value.
yes, as written in the patch description: "We'll store the number of blocks along with the actual pointer to keep it simple."
It's cleaner to me to store it along the RCU-freed data structure that has this size.
-- Cheers, David / dhildenb
