On Fri, 4 Dec 2015, Geliang Tang wrote:
> 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.
Maybe make the code clearer by using another method to get the page
pointer?
> >
> > 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?
I take that back. list_empty is the best choice here.
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>