Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 04:03 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
>> +/* free a chain of page-arrays */
>> +void cr_pgarr_free(struct cr_ctx *ctx)
>> +{
>> + struct cr_pgarr *pgarr, *pgnxt;
>> +
>> + for (pgarr = ctx->pgarr; pgarr; pgarr = pgnxt) {
>> + _cr_pgarr_release(ctx, pgarr);
>> + free_pages((unsigned long) ctx->pgarr->addrs, CR_PGARR_ORDER);
>> + free_pages((unsigned long) ctx->pgarr->pages, CR_PGARR_ORDER);
>> + pgnxt = pgarr->next;
>> + kfree(pgarr);
>> + }
>> +}
>
> What we effectively have here is:
>
> void *addrs[CR_PGARR_TOTAL];
> void *pages[CR_PGARR_TOTAL];
>
> right?
>
> Would any of this get simpler if we just had:
>
> struct cr_page {
> struct page *page;
> unsigned long vaddr;
> };
>
> struct cr_pgarr {
> struct cr_page *cr_pages;
> struct cr_pgarr *next;
> unsigned short nleft;
> unsigned short nused;
> };
The reason I use separate arrays instead of an array of tuples is that
the logic is to write all vaddr at once - simply by dumping the array
of vaddrs.
>
> Also, we do have lots of linked list implementations in the kernel.
> They do lots of fun stuff like poisoning and checking for
> initialization. We should use them instead of rolling our own. It lets
> us do other fun stuff like list_for_each().
>
> Also, just looking at this structure 'nleft' and 'nused' sound a bit
> redundant. I know from looking at the code that this is how many have
> been filled and read back at restore time, but that is not very obvious
> looking at the structure. I think we can do a bit better in the
> structure itself.
>
> The length of the arrays is fixed at compile-time, right? Should we
> just make that explicit as well?
The length of the array may be tunable, or even adaptive (e.g. based
on statistics from recent checkpoints), in the future.
Oren.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
