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?
> 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???
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?
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/
