[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8bd3c3e8-9865-4467-86d5-17d891f6f21b@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 13:55:09 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Hao Li <hao.li@...ux.dev>
Cc: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab: replace cache_from_obj() with inline checks
On 1/20/26 12:57, Hao Li wrote:
>> @@ -6774,11 +6770,21 @@ static inline struct kmem_cache *cache_from_obj(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x)
>> */
>> void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x)
>> {
>> - s = cache_from_obj(s, x);
>> - if (!s)
>> - return;
>> + struct slab *slab;
>> +
>> + slab = virt_to_slab(x);
>> +
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_HARDENED) ||
>> + kmem_cache_debug_flags(s, SLAB_CONSISTENCY_CHECKS)) {
>> +
>> + if (unlikely(!slab || (slab->slab_cache != s))) {
>> + warn_free_bad_obj(s, x);
>
> Just to make sure I'm understanding correctly, are we intentionally not
> releasing the object x in this case? Thanks.
Yes, it means something went wrong so it's better not to do anything. That
was true before this patch as well.
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> trace_kmem_cache_free(_RET_IP_, x, s);
>> - slab_free(s, virt_to_slab(x), x, _RET_IP_);
>> + slab_free(s, slab, x, _RET_IP_);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free);
>>
>> @@ -7305,7 +7311,7 @@ int build_detached_freelist(struct kmem_cache *s, size_t size,
>> df->s = slab->slab_cache;
>> } else {
>> df->slab = slab;
>> - df->s = cache_from_obj(s, object); /* Support for memcg */
>> + df->s = s;
>> }
>>
>> /* Start new detached freelist */
>>
>> ---
>> base-commit: 0f61b1860cc3f52aef9036d7235ed1f017632193
>> change-id: 20260120-b4-remove_cache_from_obj-190fcaf16789
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists