Re: [PATCH v2] mm/slab.c: use list_{empty_careful,last_entry} in drain_freelist

[Christoph Lameter]

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 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/