[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <PH0PR11MB5192C83167C9A7C033B1DCA5EC80A@PH0PR11MB5192.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 04:22:06 +0000
From: "Song, Xiongwei" <Xiongwei.Song@...driver.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"sxwjean@...com" <sxwjean@...com>
CC: "vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"42.hyeyoo@...il.com" <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
"cl@...ux.com" <cl@...ux.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"penberg@...nel.org" <penberg@...nel.org>,
"rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"iamjoonsoo.kim@....com" <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
"roman.gushchin@...ux.dev" <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] mm/slub: correct the default value of
slub_min_objects in doc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 1:50 AM
> 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; Song, Xiongwei <Xiongwei.Song@...driver.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/slub: correct the default value of slub_min_objects in doc
>
> CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
> 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. :)
Sorry for those mistakes. Will update.
Regards,
Xiongwei
>
> >
> > 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists