[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bb05153c-29a9-b77e-0815-506309da6da0@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 10:27:46 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] hugetlb: Use LIST_HEAD() to define a list head
On 2022/8/27 9:47, Muchun Song wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 26, 2022, at 17:24, Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> We can avoid unneeded WRITE_ONCE() overhead by using LIST_HEAD() to define
>> a list head.
>
> IIUC, the overhead doesn’t change. Right?
I think the overhead is changed. LIST_HEAD is initialized without using WRITE_ONCE():
#define LIST_HEAD_INIT(name) { &(name), &(name) }
#define LIST_HEAD(name) \
struct list_head name = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name)
while INIT_LIST_HEAD has:
static inline void INIT_LIST_HEAD(struct list_head *list)
{
WRITE_ONCE(list->next, list);
WRITE_ONCE(list->prev, list);
}
Or am I miss something?
>
> I’m fine with your changes.
>
> Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Many thanks for your review and comment. :)
Thanks,
Miaohe Lin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists