Re: [PATCH v3 07/35] mm/slab: introduce SLAB_NO_OBJ_EXT to avoid obj_ext creation
From: Vlastimil Babka <hidden>
Date: 2024-02-16 18:49:05
Also in:
cgroups, linux-arch, linux-doc, linux-fsdevel, linux-iommu, linux-mm, lkml
On 2/16/24 19:41, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:10 PM Suren Baghdasaryan [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 1:50 PM Vlastimil Babka [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 2/15/24 22:37, Kent Overstreet wrote:quoted
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:31:06PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:quoted
On 2/12/24 22:38, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:quoted
Slab extension objects can't be allocated before slab infrastructure is initialized. Some caches, like kmem_cache and kmem_cache_node, are created before slab infrastructure is initialized. Objects from these caches can't have extension objects. Introduce SLAB_NO_OBJ_EXT slab flag to mark these caches and avoid creating extensions for objects allocated from these slabs. Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> --- include/linux/slab.h | 7 +++++++ mm/slub.c | 5 +++-- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h index b5f5ee8308d0..3ac2fc830f0f 100644 --- a/include/linux/slab.h +++ b/include/linux/slab.h@@ -164,6 +164,13 @@ #endif #define SLAB_TEMPORARY SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT /* Objects are short-lived */ +#ifdef CONFIG_SLAB_OBJ_EXT +/* Slab created using create_boot_cache */ +#define SLAB_NO_OBJ_EXT ((slab_flags_t __force)0x20000000U)There's #define SLAB_SKIP_KFENCE ((slab_flags_t __force)0x20000000U) already, so need some other one?Indeed. I somehow missed it. Thanks for noticing, will fix this in the next version.Apparently the only unused slab flag is 0x00000200U, all others seem to be taken. I'll use it if there are no objections.
OK. Will look into the cleanup and consolidation - we already know SLAB_MEM_SPREAD became dead with SLAB removed. If it comes to worst, we can switch to 64 bits again.
quoted
quoted
quoted
What's up with the order of flags in that file? They don't seem to follow any particular ordering.Seems mostly in increasing order, except commit 4fd0b46e89879 broke it for SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT?quoted
Seems like some cleanup is in order, but any history/context we should know first?Yeah noted, but no need to sidetrack you.