Re: questions about ttm_page_alloc.c

[Jerome Glisse]

On 07/22/2010 07:56 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 07:12:37PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On 07/12/2010 06:39 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > >      327                  pages_to_free[freed_pages++] = p;
> > >      328                  /* We can only remove NUM_PAGES_TO_ALLOC at a time. */
> > >      329                  if (freed_pages>= NUM_PAGES_TO_ALLOC) {
> > >      330                          /* remove range of pages from the pool */
> > >      331                          __list_del(p->lru.prev,&pool->list);
> > >
> > > 	Why do we use p->lru.prev here when we use&p->lru in other
> > > 	places?
> > >
> > >      332
> > >      333                          ttm_pool_update_free_locked(pool, freed_pages);
> > >      334                          /**
> > >      335                           * Because changing page caching is costly
> > >      336                           * we unlock the pool to prevent stalling.
>
> Thanks for answering about the wb vs uncached, but I'm still confused why we use
> &p->lru in most places and p->lru.prev in this place.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter

This is because it use __list_del to remove a whole part of the list.

/*
 * Delete a list entry by making the prev/next entries
 * point to each other.
 *
 * This is only for internal list manipulation where we know
 * the prev/next entries already!
 */
static inline void __list_del(struct list_head * prev, struct list_head * next)
{
»·······next->prev = prev;
»·······prev->next = next;
}

Cheers,
Jerome
--
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/