On 2024/1/23 01:13, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 1/19/24 04:53, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>> On 2024/1/19 06:14, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>>>
>>>> So get_freelist() has two cases to handle: cpu slab and cpu partial list slab.
>>>> The latter is NOT frozen, so need to remove "VM_BUG_ON(!new.frozen)" from it.
>>>
>>> Right so keep the check if it is the former?
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I get it. Maybe like this:
>
> I think that's just too ugly for a VM_BUG_ON(). I'd just remove the check
> and be done with that.
Ok with me.
>
> I have a somewhat different point. You reused get_freelist() but in fact
> it's more like freeze_slab(), but that one uses slab_update_freelist() and
> we are under the local_lock so we want the cheaper __slab_update_freelist(),
> which get_freelist() has and I guess that's why you reused that one.
Right, we already have the lock_lock, so reuse get_freelist().
>
> However get_freelist() also assumes it can return NULL if the freelist is
> empty. If that's possible to happen on the percpu partial list, we should
> not "goto load_freelist;" but rather create a new label above that, above
> the "if (!freelist) {" block that handles the case.
>
> If that's not possible to happen (needs careful audit) and we have guarantee
Yes, it's not possible for now.
> that slabs on percpu partial list must have non-empty freelist, then we
> probably instead want a new __freeze_slab() variant that is like
> freeze_slab(), but uses __slab_update_freelist() and probably also has
> VM_BUG_ON(!freelist) before returning it?
>
Instead of introducing another new function, how about still reusing get_freelist()
and VM_BUG_ON(!freelist) after calling it? I feel this is simpler.
Thanks!
