Hi Vlastimil,
I didn't change description as you mentioned because slab_min_objects doesn't
save the calculated value based on the number of processors, but the local
variables min_objects doesn't.
Regards,
Xiongwei
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx <owner-linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
> sxwjean@xxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2023 9:52 PM
> To: vbabka@xxxxxxx; 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: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm/slub: correct the default value of slub_min_objects in doc
>
> From: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> There is no a value assigned to slub_min_objects by default, it always
> is 0 that is initialized by compiler if no assigned value by command line.
> min_objects is calculated based on processor numbers in calculate_order().
> For more details, see commit 9b2cd506e5f2 ("slub: Calculate min_objects
> based on number of processors.")
>
> 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 6579a55b7852..56b27f493ba7 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:
>
> -.. slab_min_objects=x (default 4)
> +.. slab_min_objects=x (default 0)
> .. slab_min_order=x (default 0)
> .. slab_max_order=x (default 3 (PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
