linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 09/21] slab: add optimized sheaf refill from partial list

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]

Message-ID: <aW9XShBOG2yckTkz@hyeyoo>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 19:22:02 +0900
From: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
To: Hao Li <hao.li@...ux.dev>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/21] slab: add optimized sheaf refill from partial
 list

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 05:32:37PM +0800, Hao Li wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 10:41:37AM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 11:54:18AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 1/19/26 07:41, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 03:40:29PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > >>  /*
> > > >>   * Try to allocate a partial slab from a specific node.
> > > >>   */
> > > >> +static unsigned int alloc_from_new_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
> > > >> +		void **p, unsigned int count, bool allow_spin)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> +	unsigned int allocated = 0;
> > > >> +	struct kmem_cache_node *n;
> > > >> +	unsigned long flags;
> > > >> +	void *object;
> > > >> +
> > > >> +	if (!allow_spin && (slab->objects - slab->inuse) > count) {
> > > >> +
> > > >> +		n = get_node(s, slab_nid(slab));
> > > >> +
> > > >> +		if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags)) {
> > > >> +			/* Unlucky, discard newly allocated slab */
> > > >> +			defer_deactivate_slab(slab, NULL);
> > > >> +			return 0;
> > > >> +		}
> > > >> +	}
> > > >> +
> > > >> +	object = slab->freelist;
> > > >> +	while (object && allocated < count) {
> > > >> +		p[allocated] = object;
> > > >> +		object = get_freepointer(s, object);
> > > >> +		maybe_wipe_obj_freeptr(s, p[allocated]);
> > > >> +
> > > >> +		slab->inuse++;
> > > >> +		allocated++;
> > > >> +	}
> > > >> +	slab->freelist = object;
> > > >> +
> > > >> +	if (slab->freelist) {
> > > >> +
> > > >> +		if (allow_spin) {
> > > >> +			n = get_node(s, slab_nid(slab));
> > > >> +			spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
> > > >> +		}
> > > >> +		add_partial(n, slab, DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD);
> > > >> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
> > > >> +	}
> > > >> +
> > > >> +	inc_slabs_node(s, slab_nid(slab), slab->objects);
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe add a comment explaining why inc_slabs_node() doesn't need to be
> > > > called under n->list_lock?
> 
> I think this is a great observation.
> 
> > > 
> > > Hm, we might not even be holding it. The old code also did the inc with no
> > > comment. If anything could use one, it would be in
> > > alloc_single_from_new_slab()? But that's outside the scope here.
> > 
> > Ok. Perhaps worth adding something like this later, but yeah it's outside
> > the scope here.
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index 698c0d940f06..c5a1e47dfe16 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -1633,6 +1633,9 @@ static inline void inc_slabs_node(struct kmem_cache *s, int node, int objects)
> >  {
> >  	struct kmem_cache_node *n = get_node(s, node);
> >  
> > +	if (kmem_cache_debug(s))
> > +		/* slab validation may generate false errors without the lock */
> > +		lockdep_assert_held(&n->list_lock);
> >  	atomic_long_inc(&n->nr_slabs);
> >  	atomic_long_add(objects, &n->total_objects);
> >  }
> 
> Yes. This makes sense to me.
> 
> Just to double-check - I noticed that inc_slabs_node() is also called by
> early_kmem_cache_node_alloc(). Could this potentially lead to false positive
> warnings for boot-time caches when debug flags are enabled?

Good point. Perhaps the condition should be

if ((slab_state != DOWN) && kmem_cache_debug(s))

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon