On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Christopher Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>
>> However for SLUB in debug kernel, the sizes were same. On further
>> inspection it is found that SLUB always use kmem_cache.object_size to
>> measure the kmem_cache.size while SLAB use the given kmem_cache.size. In
>> the debug kernel the slab's size can be larger than its object_size.
>> Thus in the creation of non-root slab, the SLAB uses the root's size as
>> base to calculate the non-root slab's size and thus non-root slab's size
>> can be larger than the root slab's size. For SLUB, the non-root slab's
>> size is measured based on the root's object_size and thus the size will
>> remain same for root and non-root slab.
>
> Note that the object_size and size may differ for SLUB based on kernel
> parameters and slab configuration. For SLAB these are compilation options.
>
Thanks for the explanation.
>> @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ struct kmem_cache *find_mergeable(unsigned int size, unsigned int align,
>> }
>>
>> static struct kmem_cache *create_cache(const char *name,
>> - unsigned int object_size, unsigned int size, unsigned int align,
>> + unsigned int object_size, unsigned int align,
>> slab_flags_t flags, unsigned int useroffset,
>
> Why was both the size and object_size passed during cache creation in the
> first place? From the flags etc the slab logic should be able to compute
> the actual bytes required for each object and its metadata.
>
+Vladimir
I think it was introduced by 794b1248be4e7 ("memcg, slab: separate
memcg vs root cache creation paths") but I could not find out the
reason.
