On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:36:52AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> 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.
This was a mistake - I missed that __kmem_cache_create() overwrites
kmem_cache->size. Thanks for fixing this.
