On 11/21/23 09:54, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 6:13 PM <sxwjean@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Since slab allocator has been removed. There is no users about slab
>> merge except slub. This commit is almost to revert
>> commit 423c929cbbec ("mm/slab_common: commonize slab merge logic").
>>
>> Also change all prefix of slab merge related functions, variables and
>> definitions from "slab/SLAB" to"slub/SLUB".
>
> Could you please elaborate a little bit?
> I am not sure if I understand what the last two patches of this series
> are useful for.
>
> - Why rename variable/function/macro names?
> - Why move merge related functions from slab_common.c to slub.c?
In my series I have moved functions that were part of allocation/free hot
paths as there should be performance benefits if they are all in the same
compilation unit.
> (I mean merging slab_common.c and slub.c into single file might make sense
> but why move only some parts of one into the other?)
OTOH slub.c becomes quite big, so I think it would make sense to not merge
mm/slab_common.c fully. The non-hot code that's handling e.g. the caches
creation and management, such as what this patch is moving, could certainly
stay away from mm/slub.c. We could just pick a more descriptive name for
slab_common.c.
I'd even investigate if more parts of slub.c could be split out (to a new
file/files) without compromising the hot paths, i.e. sysfs, debugging etc.
