On Sat, 20 Apr 2024, Hyunmin Lee wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> index 3179a6aeffc5..c3271b17eb76 100644
> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> @@ -919,19 +919,12 @@ void __init create_kmalloc_caches(void)
> for (i = KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW; i <= KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH; i++) {
> if (!kmalloc_caches[type][i])
> new_kmalloc_cache(i, type);
> -
> - /*
> - * Caches that are not of the two-to-the-power-of size.
> - * These have to be created immediately after the
> - * earlier power of two caches
> - */
> - if (KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE <= 32 && i == 6 &&
> - !kmalloc_caches[type][1])
> - new_kmalloc_cache(1, type);
> - if (KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE <= 64 && i == 7 &&
> - !kmalloc_caches[type][2])
> - new_kmalloc_cache(2, type);
> }
> +
> + if (KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE <= 32 && !kmalloc_caches[type][1])
> + new_kmalloc_cache(1, type);
> + if (KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE <= 64 && !kmalloc_caches[type][2])
> + new_kmalloc_cache(2, type);
> }
> #ifdef CONFIG_RANDOM_KMALLOC_CACHES
> random_kmalloc_seed = get_random_u64();
No objection to this, but it would be nice to continue to have a comment
about why these slab caches are special.
Another thought: can we move the check for NULL kmalloc_caches to
new_kmalloc_cache() instead of handling it in the caller?
