Re: [PATCH 02/16] DRBD: lru_cache

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Sat May 02 2009 - 14:07:42 EST


On Sat, 2 May 2009 17:26:20 +0200 Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> in memory structure is
>
> struct lru_cache {
> struct list_head active;
> struct list_head quiet;
> struct list_head free;
> size_t element_size; <-- parameter to "lc_alloc"
> unsigned int nr_elements; <-- parameter to "lc_alloc"
> unsigned int new_number;
>
> unsigned int used;
> unsigned long flags;
> unsigned long hits, misses, starving, dirty, changed;
>
> struct lc_element *changing_element; /* just for paranoia */
>
> const char *name;
>
> struct hlist_head slot[0];
> /* hash colision chains here, then element storage. */
> };
>
> so we have fixed size list heads,
> size of a single such "element", to allow the user
> to add small payload;
> number of hash slots and "elements" following this header;
> some counters;
> hlist_slot[0];
> }
> following:
> struct hlist_head[nr_elements];
> array of element_size blobs[nr_elements];
>
> these "blobs" start with the struct lru_element,
> possibly followed by some user payload.
>
> the "index" you are asking about later is
> index into that "blob" array,
> and is used primarily to initialize the state of this thing
> from an on-disk representation (the "activity log", "AL"),
> for crash recovery purposes.
>
> the typecasting is necessary to get from the slot[0] to the "elements"
> skipping the hash slots.
> using "container of" or something like that would obscure the fact that,
> as currently implemented, the "lru_element" _must_ be the first member
> of any payload structure.

I still don't see why the lru_element must be the first member of the
user's outer, containing structure.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/