Re: [PATCH v3 11/21] slab: remove SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL

[Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 12:59 AM Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 10:25:27PM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 2:40 PM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > @@ -5744,10 +5553,9 @@ static void __slab_free(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
> > >
> > >         /*
> > >          * Objects left in the slab. If it was not on the partial list before
> > > -        * then add it. This can only happen when cache has no per cpu partial
> > > -        * list otherwise we would have put it there.
> > > +        * then add it.
> > >          */
> > > -       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL) && unlikely(was_full)) {
> > > +       if (unlikely(was_full)) {
> >
> > This is not really related to your change but I wonder why we check
> > for was_full to detect that the slab was not on partial list instead
> > of checking !on_node_partial... They might be equivalent at this point
> > but it's still a bit confusing.
>
> If we only know that a slab is not on the partial list, we cannot
> manipulate its list because it may be on a linked list that cannot
> handle list manipulation outside function
> (e.g., pc.slabs in __refill_objects()).
>
> If it's not on the partial list, we can safely manipulate the list
> only when we know it was full. It's safe because full slabs are not
> supposed to be on any list (except for debug caches, where frees are
> done via free_to_partial_list()).

Ack. I guess I'm reading the above comment too literally. Thanks!

>
> --
> Cheers,
> Harry / Hyeonggon