> -----Original Message----- > From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 12:13 AM > To: sxwjean@xxxxxx; 42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx; cl@xxxxxxxxx; linux- > mm@xxxxxxxxx > Cc: penberg@xxxxxxxxxx; rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx; iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx; > roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx; corbet@xxxxxxx; keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx; > arnd@xxxxxxxx; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Song, Xiongwei > <Xiongwei.Song@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] supplement of slab allocator removal > > On 12/3/23 01:14, sxwjean@xxxxxx wrote: > > From: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hi, > > > > Patch 1 is to remove an unused parameter. This patch actually is v3, but > > it is not reasonable to add v3 tag in the cover letter, so I put the > > change history inside the patch. > > > > --- > > Patch 2 is to replace slub_$params with slab_$params. > > Vlastimil Babka pointed out we should use "slab_$param" as the primary > > prefix for long-term plan. Please see [1] for more information. > > > > This patch is to do that. However, the patch is big, I'm not sure if > > everything is proper in it, so I added "RFC" in the patch title. For more > > information please see the commit message of patch. > > > > I did the basic tests with qemu, which passed values by sl[au]b_max_order, > > sl[au]b_min_order, sl[au]b_min_objects and sl[au]b_debug in command > line. > > The values looks correct by printing them out before calculating orders. > > > > One thing I'm not sure about the forth parameter of __setup_param(), > > Is it correct to set the parameter to 0 directly? > > Yep it's fine. Thanks for the confirmation.
