Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
>
>
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> >> --- a/checkpoint/Makefile
> >> +++ b/checkpoint/Makefile
> >> @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
> >> # Makefile for linux checkpoint/restart.
> >> #
> >>
> >> -obj-$(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT) += sys.o objhash.o \
> >> +obj-$(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT) += sys.o objhash.o deferqueue.o \
> >> checkpoint.o restart.o \
> >> ckpt_task.o rstr_task.o \
> >> ckpt_mem.o rstr_mem.o \
> >> - ckpt_file.o rstr_file.o
> >> + ckpt_file.o rstr_file.o \
> >
> > ?
> >
> >> +int cr_deferqueue_add(struct cr_ctx *ctx, cr_deferqueue_func_t function,
> >> + unsigned int flags, void *data, int size)
> >> +{
> >> + struct cr_deferqueue *wq;
> >> +
> >> + wq = kmalloc(sizeof(wq) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + if (!wq)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + wq->function = function;
> >> + wq->flags = flags;
> >> + memcpy(wq->data, data, size);
> >> +
> >> + cr_debug("adding work %p function %p\n", wq, wq->function);
> >> + list_add_tail(&ctx->deferqueue, &wq->list);
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >
> > Shouldn't the deferqueue be protected by a spinlock here?
>
> Not until we implement concurrent checkpoint/restart. At the moment
> it's one task at a time the can access it.
That's too bad. I think this woudl be better done as a single
simple patch addin ga new generic deferqueue mechanism for all
to use, with a per-queue spinlock protecting both _add and
_run
-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
