linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/slub: correct the default value of slub_min

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:50:08 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     sxwjean@...com
Cc:     vbabka@...e.cz, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com, cl@...ux.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, corbet@....net,
        arnd@...db.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/slub: correct the default value of
 slub_min_objects in doc

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 11:15:05AM +0800, sxwjean@...com wrote:
> From: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@...driver.com>
> 
> There is no a value assigned to slub_min_objects by default, it awlays
                                                                  ^^^^^^
> is 0 that is intailized by compiler if no assigned value by command line.
               ^^^^^^^^^^
> min_objects is calculated based on proccessor numbers in
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^
> calculate_order(). For more details, see commit 9b2cd506e5f2 ("slub:
> Calculate min_objects based on number of processors.")

nit: multiple spelling mistakes here. Please double-check commit logs
with a spell checker. :)

> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@...driver.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/mm/slub.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/mm/slub.rst b/Documentation/mm/slub.rst
> index be75971532f5..1f4399581449 100644
> --- a/Documentation/mm/slub.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/mm/slub.rst
> @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ list_lock once in a while to deal with partial slabs. That overhead is
>  governed by the order of the allocation for each slab. The allocations
>  can be influenced by kernel parameters:
>  
> -.. slub_min_objects=x		(default 4)
> +.. slub_min_objects=x		(default 0)
>  .. slub_min_order=x		(default 0)
>  .. slub_max_order=x		(default 3 (PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))

But otherwise, yes, this change matches what the code does.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook