[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100722115628.GG17585@bicker>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:56:28 +0200
From: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To: Jerome Glisse <glisse@...edesktop.org>
Cc: suokkos@...il.com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: questions about ttm_page_alloc.c
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 07:12:37PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On 07/12/2010 06:39 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> 327 pages_to_free[freed_pages++] = p;
>> 328 /* We can only remove NUM_PAGES_TO_ALLOC at a time. */
>> 329 if (freed_pages>= NUM_PAGES_TO_ALLOC) {
>> 330 /* remove range of pages from the pool */
>> 331 __list_del(p->lru.prev,&pool->list);
>>
>> Why do we use p->lru.prev here when we use &p->lru in other
>> places?
>>
>> 332
>> 333 ttm_pool_update_free_locked(pool, freed_pages);
>> 334 /**
>> 335 * Because changing page caching is costly
>> 336 * we unlock the pool to prevent stalling.
>>
Thanks for answering about the wb vs uncached, but I'm still confused why we use
&p->lru in most places and p->lru.prev in this place.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists