On 2023/11/1 21:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
>
> On 10/31/23 15:07, chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Since the introduce of unfrozen slabs on cpu partial list, we don't
>> need to synchronize the slab frozen state under the node list_lock.
>>
>> The caller of deactivate_slab() and the caller of __slab_free() won't
>> manipulate the slab list concurrently.
>>
>> So we can get node list_lock in the last stage if we really need to
>> manipulate the slab list in this path.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
>
>> ---
>> mm/slub.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>> index bcb5b2c4e213..c429f8baba5f 100644
>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>> @@ -2468,10 +2468,8 @@ static void init_kmem_cache_cpus(struct kmem_cache *s)
>> static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>> void *freelist)
>> {
>> - enum slab_modes { M_NONE, M_PARTIAL, M_FREE, M_FULL_NOLIST };
>> struct kmem_cache_node *n = get_node(s, slab_nid(slab));
>> int free_delta = 0;
>> - enum slab_modes mode = M_NONE;
>> void *nextfree, *freelist_iter, *freelist_tail;
>> int tail = DEACTIVATE_TO_HEAD;
>> unsigned long flags = 0;
>> @@ -2512,62 +2510,40 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
>> *
>> * Ensure that the slab is unfrozen while the list presence
>> * reflects the actual number of objects during unfreeze.
>
> I think this we can delete also these two lines. If there's no other
> reason for v5, I can do it when merging the series.
Ok, I will delete it in v5.
Thanks!
