On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:16 PM Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 2:41 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > It seems we need to be more forceful with the compiler on this one. > > This is done for performance reasons only. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > mm/slub.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c > > index 2ef88bbf56a3..d31b03a8d9d5 100644 > > --- a/mm/slub.c > > +++ b/mm/slub.c > > @@ -2121,7 +2121,7 @@ bool slab_free_hook(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x, bool init) > > return !kasan_slab_free(s, x, init); > > } > > > > -static inline bool slab_free_freelist_hook(struct kmem_cache *s, > > +static __always_inline bool slab_free_freelist_hook(struct kmem_cache *s, > > __fastpath_inline seems to me more appropriate here. It prioritizes > memory vs performance. Hmm. AFAIKT this function is used only in one place and we do not add any additional users, so I don't think changing to __fastpath_inline here would gain us anything. > > > void **head, void **tail, > > int *cnt) > > { > > -- > > 2.44.0.rc0.258.g7320e95886-goog > >