Hi Vlastimil, I didn't change description as you mentioned because slab_min_objects doesn't save the calculated value based on the number of processors, but the local variables min_objects doesn't. Regards, Xiongwei > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx <owner-linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of > sxwjean@xxxxxx > Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2023 9:52 PM > To: vbabka@xxxxxxx; 42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx; cl@xxxxxxxxx; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx > Cc: penberg@xxxxxxxxxx; rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx; iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx; > roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx; corbet@xxxxxxx; keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx; arnd@xxxxxxxx; > akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Song, Xiongwei <Xiongwei.Song@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm/slub: correct the default value of slub_min_objects in doc > > From: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > There is no a value assigned to slub_min_objects by default, it always > is 0 that is initialized by compiler if no assigned value by command line. > min_objects is calculated based on processor numbers in calculate_order(). > For more details, see commit 9b2cd506e5f2 ("slub: Calculate min_objects > based on number of processors.") > > Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/mm/slub.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/mm/slub.rst b/Documentation/mm/slub.rst > index 6579a55b7852..56b27f493ba7 100644 > --- a/Documentation/mm/slub.rst > +++ b/Documentation/mm/slub.rst > @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ list_lock once in a while to deal with partial slabs. That overhead is > governed by the order of the allocation for each slab. The allocations > can be influenced by kernel parameters: > > -.. slab_min_objects=x (default 4) > +.. slab_min_objects=x (default 0) > .. slab_min_order=x (default 0) > .. slab_max_order=x (default 3 (PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)) > > -- > 2.34.1 >