On 10/13/21 01:22, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:32:25PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

quoted

On 10/12/2021 10:43 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 01:43:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 06:07:20PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:

I audited the entire xfs (kernel) codebase and didn't find any other
usage errors.  Thanks for the patch; I'll apply it to for-next.

Which patch, the one that started this thread and uses kmem_cache_free() instead
of kfree()? I thought we said it's not the best way?

It's probably better to fix slob to be able to tell that a kmem_free'd
object actually belongs to a cache and should get freed that way, just
like its larger sl[ua]b cousins.

Agreed. Rustam, do you still plan to do that?

However, even if that does come to pass, anybody /else/ who wants to
start(?) using XFS on a SLOB system will need this patch to fix the
minor papercut.  Now that I've checked the rest of the codebase, I don't
find it reasonable to make XFS mutually exclusive with SLOB over two
instances of slab cache misuse.  Hence the RVB. :)

Ok. I was just wondering because Dave's first reply was that actually you'll
need to expand the use of kfree() instead of kmem_cache_free().