On 12/16/21 00:38, Roman Gushchin wrote: > Part 2: > > * mm: Convert check_heap_object() to use struct slab > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> > > * mm/slub: Convert detached_freelist to use a struct slab > How about to convert free_nonslab_page() to free_nonslab_folio()? > And maybe rename it to something like free_large_kmalloc()? > If I'm not missing something, large kmallocs is the only way how we can end up > there with a !slab folio/page. Good point, thanks! But did at as part of the following patch, where it fits logically better. > * mm/slub: Convert kfree() to use a struct slab > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> Didn't add your tag because of the addition of free_large_kmalloc() change. > * mm/slub: Convert __slab_lock() and __slab_unlock() to struct slab > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> > > * mm/slub: Convert print_page_info() to print_slab_info() > Do we really need to explicitly convert slab_folio()'s result to (struct folio *)? Unfortunately yes, as long as folio_flags() don't take const struct folio *, which will need some yak shaving. > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> > > * mm/slub: Convert alloc_slab_page() to return a struct slab > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> > > * mm/slub: Convert __free_slab() to use struct slab > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> > > * mm/slub: Convert pfmemalloc_match() to take a struct slab > Cool! Removing pfmemalloc_unsafe() is really nice. > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> > > * mm/slub: Convert most struct page to struct slab by spatch > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> > > * mm/slub: Finish struct page to struct slab conversion > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> > > * mm/slab: Convert kmem_getpages() and kmem_freepages() to struct slab > Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> Thanks again! > * mm/slab: Convert most struct page to struct slab by spatch > > Another patch with the same title? Rebase error? > > * mm/slab: Finish struct page to struct slab conversion > > And this one too? > > > Thanks! > > Roman
