-
由 Hugh Dickins 提交于
Free up a pointer in struct rmap_item, by making the mm_slot's rmap_list a singly-linked list: we always traverse that list sequentially, and we don't even lose any prefetches (but should consider adding a few later). Name it rmap_list throughout. Do we need to free up that pointer? Not immediately, and in the end, we could continue to avoid it with a union; but having done the conversion, let's keep it this way, since there's no downside, and maybe we'll want more in future (struct rmap_item is a cache-friendly 32 bytes on 32-bit and 64 bytes on 64-bit, so we shall want to avoid expanding it). Signed-off-by: NHugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk> Cc: Izik Eidus <ieidus@redhat.com> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
6514d511