Re: [PATCH slab v5 6/6] slab: Introduce kmalloc_nolock() and kfree_nolock().

[Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 5:53 AM Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> >       if (unlikely(!node_match(slab, node))) {
> >               /*
> >                * same as above but node_match() being false already
> > -              * implies node != NUMA_NO_NODE
> > +              * implies node != NUMA_NO_NODE.
> > +              * Reentrant slub cannot take locks necessary to
> > +              * deactivate_slab, hence ignore node preference.
>
> nit: the comment is obsolte?

Ohh. Sorry. I clearly remember fixing this comment per
your feedback. Not sure how I lost this hunk.

> Per previous discussion there were two points.
> Maybe something like this?
>
> /*
>  * We don't strictly honor pfmemalloc and NUMA preferences when
>  * !allow_spin because:
>  *
>  * 1. Most kmalloc() users allocate objects on the local node,
>  *    so kmalloc_nolock() tries not to interfere with them by
>  *    deactivating the cpu slab.
>  *
>  * 2. Deactivating due to NUMA or pfmemalloc mismatch may cause
>  *    unnecessary slab allocations even when n->partial list is not empty.
>  */
>
> ...or if you don't feel like it's not worth documenting,
> just removing the misleading comment is fine.

The above reads great to me.
Will send a follow up patch in a minute to fold in or keep it separate.