[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151204134302.GA6388@bogon>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 21:43:02 +0800
From: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@....com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Geliang Tang <geliangtang@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/slab.c: use list_{empty_careful,last_entry} in
drain_freelist
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:53:21AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Geliang Tang wrote:
>
> > while (nr_freed < tofree && !list_empty(&n->slabs_free)) {
> >
> > spin_lock_irq(&n->list_lock);
> > - p = n->slabs_free.prev;
> > - if (p == &n->slabs_free) {
> > + if (list_empty_careful(&n->slabs_free)) {
>
> We have taken the lock. Why do we need to be "careful"? list_empty()
> shoudl work right?
Yes. list_empty() is OK.
>
> > spin_unlock_irq(&n->list_lock);
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > - page = list_entry(p, struct page, lru);
> > + page = list_last_entry(&n->slabs_free, struct page, lru);
>
> last???
The original code delete the page from the tail of slabs_free list.
>
> Would the the other new function that returns NULL on the empty list or
> the pointer not be useful here too and save some code?
Sorry, I don't really understand what do you mean. Can you please specify
it a little bit?
Thanks.
- Geliang
>
> This patch seems to make it difficult to understand the code.
--
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