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
