[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why is the free_list not null-terminated?

To: Timur Tabi <ttabi@interactivesi.com>
Subject: Re: Why is the free_list not null-terminated?
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 03:27:15 +0200 (CEST)
cc: Linux MM mailing list <linux-mm@kvack.org>
In-Reply-To: <20000623193609Z131187-21004+54@kanga.kvack.org>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Timur Tabi wrote:

>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.

>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).

(btw give a try also to SYSRQ+M if you are interested about similar info)

Andrea

--
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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why is the free_list not null-terminated?
  - From: Timur Tabi <ttabi@interactivesi.com>

References:
- Why is the free_list not null-terminated?
  - From: Timur Tabi <ttabi@interactivesi.com>

Prev by Date: Re: RSS guarantees and limits
Next by Date: Re: Why is the free_list not null-terminated?
Prev by thread: Why is the free_list not null-terminated?
Next by thread: Re: Why is the free_list not null-terminated?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread