>> > +static inline void clear_slob_page_free(struct page *sp)
>> > {
>> > list_del(&sp->list);
>> > - __ClearPageSlobFree((struct page *)sp);
>> > + __ClearPageSlobFree(sp);
>> > }
>>
>> I think we shouldn't use __ClearPageSlobFree anymore.
>> Before this patch, list_del affect page->private,
>> so when we manipulate slob list,
>> using PageSlobFree overloaded with PagePrivate is reasonable.
>> But, after this patch is applied, list_del doesn't touch page->private,
>> so manipulate PageSlobFree is not reasonable.
>> We would use another method for checking slob_page_free without
>> PageSlobFree flag.
>
> What method should we be using?
Actually, I have no good idea.
How about below implementation?
static inline int slob_page_free(struct page *sp)
{
return !list_empty(&sp->list);
}
static void set_slob_page_free(struct page *sp, struct list_head *list)
{
list_add(&sp->list, list);
}
static inline void clear_slob_page_free(struct page *sp)
{
list_del_init(&sp->list);
}
Above functions' name should be changed something like "add_freelist,
remove_freelist, in_freelist" for readability
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href