The inetpeer.c tracks the LRU list of inet_perr-s, but makes
it by hands. Use the list_head-s for this.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>

---

diff --git a/include/net/inetpeer.h b/include/net/inetpeer.h
index aa10a81..ad8404b 100644
--- a/include/net/inetpeer.h
+++ b/include/net/inetpeer.h
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ struct inet_peer
 	__be32			v4daddr;	/* peer's address */
 	__u16			avl_height;
 	__u16			ip_id_count;	/* IP ID for the next packet */
-	struct inet_peer	*unused_next, **unused_prevp;
+	struct list_head	unused;
 	__u32			dtime;		/* the time of last use of not
 						 * referenced entries */
 	atomic_t		refcnt;
diff --git a/net/ipv4/inetpeer.c b/net/ipv4/inetpeer.c
index 771031d..af99519 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/inetpeer.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/inetpeer.c
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
  *  4.  Global variable peer_total is modified under the pool lock.
  *  5.  struct inet_peer fields modification:
  *		avl_left, avl_right, avl_parent, avl_height: pool lock
- *		unused_next, unused_prevp: unused node list lock
+ *		unused: unused node list lock
  *		refcnt: atomically against modifications on other CPU;
  *		   usually under some other lock to prevent node disappearing
  *		dtime: unused node list lock
@@ -94,8 +94,7 @@ int inet_peer_maxttl __read_mostly = 10 * 60 * HZ;	/* usual time to live: 10 min
 int inet_peer_gc_mintime __read_mostly = 10 * HZ;
 int inet_peer_gc_maxtime __read_mostly = 120 * HZ;
 
-static struct inet_peer *inet_peer_unused_head;
-static struct inet_peer **inet_peer_unused_tailp = &inet_peer_unused_head;
+static LIST_HEAD(unused_peers);
 static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(inet_peer_unused_lock);
 
 static void peer_check_expire(unsigned long dummy);
@@ -138,15 +137,7 @@ void __init inet_initpeers(void)
 static void unlink_from_unused(struct inet_peer *p)
 {
 	spin_lock_bh(&inet_peer_unused_lock);
-	if (p->unused_prevp != NULL) {
-		/* On unused list. */
-		*p->unused_prevp = p->unused_next;
-		if (p->unused_next != NULL)
-			p->unused_next->unused_prevp = p->unused_prevp;
-		else
-			inet_peer_unused_tailp = p->unused_prevp;
-		p->unused_prevp = NULL; /* mark it as removed */
-	}
+	list_del_init(&p->unused);
 	spin_unlock_bh(&inet_peer_unused_lock);
 }
 
@@ -337,24 +328,24 @@ static void unlink_from_pool(struct inet_peer *p)
 /* May be called with local BH enabled. */
 static int cleanup_once(unsigned long ttl)
 {
-	struct inet_peer *p;
+	struct inet_peer *p = NULL;
 
 	/* Remove the first entry from the list of unused nodes. */
 	spin_lock_bh(&inet_peer_unused_lock);
-	p = inet_peer_unused_head;
-	if (p != NULL) {
-		__u32 delta = (__u32)jiffies - p->dtime;
+	if (!list_empty(&unused_peers)) {
+		__u32 delta;
+
+		p = list_first_entry(&unused_peers, struct inet_peer, unused);
+		delta = (__u32)jiffies - p->dtime;
+
 		if (delta < ttl) {
 			/* Do not prune fresh entries. */
 			spin_unlock_bh(&inet_peer_unused_lock);
 			return -1;
 		}
-		inet_peer_unused_head = p->unused_next;
-		if (p->unused_next != NULL)
-			p->unused_next->unused_prevp = p->unused_prevp;
-		else
-			inet_peer_unused_tailp = p->unused_prevp;
-		p->unused_prevp = NULL; /* mark as not on the list */
+
+		list_del_init(&p->unused);
+
 		/* Grab an extra reference to prevent node disappearing
 		 * before unlink_from_pool() call. */
 		atomic_inc(&p->refcnt);
@@ -412,7 +403,7 @@ struct inet_peer *inet_getpeer(__be32 daddr, int create)
 
 	/* Link the node. */
 	link_to_pool(n);
-	n->unused_prevp = NULL; /* not on the list */
+	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&n->unused);
 	peer_total++;
 	write_unlock_bh(&peer_pool_lock);
 
@@ -467,10 +458,7 @@ void inet_putpeer(struct inet_peer *p)
 {
 	spin_lock_bh(&inet_peer_unused_lock);
 	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&p->refcnt)) {
-		p->unused_prevp = inet_peer_unused_tailp;
-		p->unused_next = NULL;
-		*inet_peer_unused_tailp = p;
-		inet_peer_unused_tailp = &p->unused_next;
+		list_add_tail(&p->unused, &unused_peers);
 		p->dtime = (__u32)jiffies;
 	}
 	spin_unlock_bh(&inet_peer_unused_lock);
-- 
1.5.3.4

From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:32:58 +0300

> The inetpeer.c tracks the LRU list of inet_perr-s, but makes
> it by hands. Use the list_head-s for this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>

This makes every inetpeer struct consume 8 more bytes, and on some
systems we have can have many of these objects active.  That space
savings is why this was done the way it was.

It would be nice to have "tailq" like interfaces in linux/list.h
for situations like this.

Please do not submit a patch implementing that until the 2.6.25
merge window, however, thanks.

David Miller wrote:
> From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:32:58 +0300
> 
>> The inetpeer.c tracks the LRU list of inet_perr-s, but makes
>> it by hands. Use the list_head-s for this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
> 
> This makes every inetpeer struct consume 8 more bytes, and on some
> systems we have can have many of these objects active.  That space
> savings is why this was done the way it was.

No. I remove _two_ pointers unused_next and unused_prevp, and add
the list_head, which is _two_ pointers as well. I've even checked the
compilation on both i386 and x86_64 - the sizeof(struct inet_peer) 
is not changed.

You must have overlooked the unused_prevp member, because it is 
declared in the same line as the unused_next. Or I miss something else?

> It would be nice to have "tailq" like interfaces in linux/list.h
> for situations like this.
> 
> Please do not submit a patch implementing that until the 2.6.25
> merge window, however, thanks.

If my explanation above is correct, should I delay this patch until
the 2.6.25 anyway?

Thanks,
Pavel

From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:57:23 +0300

> No. I remove _two_ pointers unused_next and unused_prevp, and add
> the list_head, which is _two_ pointers as well. I've even checked the
> compilation on both i386 and x86_64 - the sizeof(struct inet_peer) 
> is not changed.
> 
> You must have overlooked the unused_prevp member, because it is 
> declared in the same line as the unused_next. Or I miss something else?

I missed that, please resubmit your patch.

Thanks.