From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:39:01 -0500 From: Timur Tabi In-Reply-To: References: <20000623193609Z131187-21004+54@kanga.kvack.org> Subject: Re: Why is the free_list not null-terminated? Message-Id: <20000627154857Z131176-21004+69@kanga.kvack.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linux MM mailing list List-ID: ** Reply to message from Andrea Arcangeli on Tue, 27 Jun 2000 03:27:15 +0200 (CEST) > >Question #1: Does this mean that there are no free zones of Order 2 (16KB)? > > It means there are no free contigous chunks of memory of order 2 in such > zone. That's what I meant :-) > >Question #2: Why are prev and next not set to null? Why do they point > > because of linux/include/list.h ;), more seriously that avoids a path in > the list insert/remove code but the head of the list is double size (and > this is not an issue except for large hashtables). Well, I don't understand what that means, but I don't think it's important. But something else does confuse me. Both free_area[x].free_list.prev and free_area[x].free_list.next point to mem_map_t blocks. Why is that? How do I find the head this linked list? I would think that free_area[x].free_list.prev would point to nothing, and free_area[x].free_list.next points to the head of the list. > (btw give a try also to SYSRQ+M if you are interested about similar info) What is SYSRQ+M? I've never heard of that! -- Timur Tabi - ttabi@interactivesi.com Interactive Silicon - http://www.interactivesi.com When replying to a mailing-list message, please don't cc: me, because then I'll just get two copies of the same message. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/