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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
