On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 09:56:41AM -0700, Rustam Kovhaev wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 09:38:31AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > On 10/13/21 01:22, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:32:25PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > >> On 10/12/2021 10:43 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > >> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 01:43:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > >> >> On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 06:07:20PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> I audited the entire xfs (kernel) codebase and didn't find any other > > >> >> usage errors. Thanks for the patch; I'll apply it to for-next. > > >> > > >> Which patch, the one that started this thread and uses kmem_cache_free() instead > > >> of kfree()? I thought we said it's not the best way? > > > > > > It's probably better to fix slob to be able to tell that a kmem_free'd > > > object actually belongs to a cache and should get freed that way, just > > > like its larger sl[ua]b cousins. > > > > Agreed. Rustam, do you still plan to do that? > > Yes, I do, thank you. Note that I left out the parts of the patch that changed mm/slob.c because I didn't think that was appropriate for a patch titled 'xfs:'. > > > > > > However, even if that does come to pass, anybody /else/ who wants to > > > start(?) using XFS on a SLOB system will need this patch to fix the > > > minor papercut. Now that I've checked the rest of the codebase, I don't > > > find it reasonable to make XFS mutually exclusive with SLOB over two > > > instances of slab cache misuse. Hence the RVB. :) > > > > Ok. I was just wondering because Dave's first reply was that actually you'll > > need to expand the use of kfree() instead of kmem_cache_free(). I look forward to doing this, but since XFS is a downstream consumer of the kmem apis, we'll have to wait until the slob changes land to do that. --D
