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: <aW7pSzVPvLLbQGxn@hyeyoo>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 11:32:43 +0900
From: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Hao Li <hao.li@...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 Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 03:40:29PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> At this point we have sheaves enabled for all caches, but their refill
> is done via __kmem_cache_alloc_bulk() which relies on cpu (partial)
> slabs - now a redundant caching layer that we are about to remove.
> 
> The refill will thus be done from slabs on the node partial list.
> Introduce new functions that can do that in an optimized way as it's
> easier than modifying the __kmem_cache_alloc_bulk() call chain.
> 
> Extend struct partial_context so it can return a list of slabs from the
> partial list with the sum of free objects in them within the requested
> min and max.
> 
> Introduce get_partial_node_bulk() that removes the slabs from freelist
> and returns them in the list.
> 
> Introduce get_freelist_nofreeze() which grabs the freelist without
> freezing the slab.
> 
> Introduce alloc_from_new_slab() which can allocate multiple objects from
> a newly allocated slab where we don't need to synchronize with freeing.
> In some aspects it's similar to alloc_single_from_new_slab() but assumes
> the cache is a non-debug one so it can avoid some actions.
> 
> Introduce __refill_objects() that uses the functions above to fill an
> array of objects. It has to handle the possibility that the slabs will
> contain more objects that were requested, due to concurrent freeing of
> objects to those slabs. When no more slabs on partial lists are
> available, it will allocate new slabs. It is intended to be only used
> in context where spinning is allowed, so add a WARN_ON_ONCE check there.
> 
> Finally, switch refill_sheaf() to use __refill_objects(). Sheaves are
> only refilled from contexts that allow spinning, or even blocking.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> ---
>  mm/slub.c | 284 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 264 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 9bea8a65e510..dce80463f92c 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -246,6 +246,9 @@ struct partial_context {
>  	gfp_t flags;
>  	unsigned int orig_size;
>  	void *object;
> +	unsigned int min_objects;
> +	unsigned int max_objects;
> +	struct list_head slabs;
>  };
>  
>  static inline bool kmem_cache_debug(struct kmem_cache *s)
> @@ -2663,8 +2666,8 @@ static int refill_sheaf(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab_sheaf *sheaf,
>  	if (!to_fill)
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	filled = __kmem_cache_alloc_bulk(s, gfp, to_fill,
> -					 &sheaf->objects[sheaf->size]);
> +	filled = __refill_objects(s, &sheaf->objects[sheaf->size], gfp,
> +			to_fill, to_fill);

nit: perhaps handling min and max separately is unnecessary
if it's always min == max? we could have simply one 'count' or 'size'?

Otherwise LGTM!

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon