[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190311231633.GF19508@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:16:33 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: "Tobin C. Harding" <tobin@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] mm: Use slab_list list_head instead of lru
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 08:49:23PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> The patchset looks good to me, however I'd add some clarifications
> why switching from lru to slab_list is safe.
>
> My understanding is that the slab_list fields isn't currently in use,
> but it's not that obvious that putting slab_list and next/pages/pobjects
> fields into a union is safe (for the slub case).
It's already in a union.
struct page {
union {
struct { /* Page cache and anonymous pages */
struct list_head lru;
...
struct { /* slab, slob and slub */
union {
struct list_head slab_list; /* uses lru */
struct { /* Partial pages */
struct page *next;
slab_list and lru are in the same bits. Once this patch set is in,
we can remove the enigmatic 'uses lru' comment that I added.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists