On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 11:15:05AM +0800, sxwjean@xxxxxx wrote:
> From: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> There is no a value assigned to slub_min_objects by default, it awlays
^^^^^^
> is 0 that is intailized by compiler if no assigned value by command line.
^^^^^^^^^^
> min_objects is calculated based on proccessor numbers in
^^^^^^^^^^
> calculate_order(). For more details, see commit 9b2cd506e5f2 ("slub:
> Calculate min_objects based on number of processors.")
nit: multiple spelling mistakes here. Please double-check commit logs
with a spell checker. :)
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/mm/slub.rst | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/mm/slub.rst b/Documentation/mm/slub.rst
> index be75971532f5..1f4399581449 100644
> --- a/Documentation/mm/slub.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/mm/slub.rst
> @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ list_lock once in a while to deal with partial slabs. That overhead is
> governed by the order of the allocation for each slab. The allocations
> can be influenced by kernel parameters:
>
> -.. slub_min_objects=x (default 4)
> +.. slub_min_objects=x (default 0)
> .. slub_min_order=x (default 0)
> .. slub_max_order=x (default 3 (PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))
But otherwise, yes, this change matches what the code does.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
