From 267691b65cf7167881609dde1e50a4aafd86af08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Xu Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 14:50:46 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] migration: No need to take rcu during sync_dirty_bitmap cpu_physical_memory_sync_dirty_bitmap() has one RAMBlock* as parameter, which means that it must be with RCU read lock held already. Taking it again inside seems redundant. Removing it. Instead comment on the functions about the RCU read lock. Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela Signed-off-by: Peter Xu Message-Id: <20190603065056.25211-2-peterx@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela --- include/exec/ram_addr.h | 5 +---- migration/ram.c | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/exec/ram_addr.h b/include/exec/ram_addr.h index f96777bb992..44dcc98de6c 100644 --- a/include/exec/ram_addr.h +++ b/include/exec/ram_addr.h @@ -409,6 +409,7 @@ static inline void cpu_physical_memory_clear_dirty_range(ram_addr_t start, } +/* Called with RCU critical section */ static inline uint64_t cpu_physical_memory_sync_dirty_bitmap(RAMBlock *rb, ram_addr_t start, @@ -432,8 +433,6 @@ uint64_t cpu_physical_memory_sync_dirty_bitmap(RAMBlock *rb, DIRTY_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE); unsigned long page = BIT_WORD(start >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS); - rcu_read_lock(); - src = atomic_rcu_read( &ram_list.dirty_memory[DIRTY_MEMORY_MIGRATION])->blocks; @@ -453,8 +452,6 @@ uint64_t cpu_physical_memory_sync_dirty_bitmap(RAMBlock *rb, idx++; } } - - rcu_read_unlock(); } else { ram_addr_t offset = rb->offset; diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c index 89eec7ee9dc..48969db84b4 100644 --- a/migration/ram.c +++ b/migration/ram.c @@ -1674,6 +1674,7 @@ static inline bool migration_bitmap_clear_dirty(RAMState *rs, return ret; } +/* Called with RCU critical section */ static void migration_bitmap_sync_range(RAMState *rs, RAMBlock *rb, ram_addr_t length) { -- 2.39.5