From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D845C433DF for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:44:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33C722B4B for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:44:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="JYKmQbrK" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F33C722B4B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 85C0C6B0002; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:44:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 80D036B0003; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:44:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 6FC986B0006; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:44:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0241.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.241]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582F06B0002 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:44:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15B08248047 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:44:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77135686950.19.top41_240960b26fdc Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988BE1AD1B1 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:44:55 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: top41_240960b26fdc X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4460 Received: from mail-pg1-f193.google.com (mail-pg1-f193.google.com [209.85.215.193]) by imf04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:44:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f193.google.com with SMTP id 128so5522852pgd.5 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version; bh=ycRnnbR2xZeCpTpBLfZzGVZNgr0ToOaSohq7rnXna0I=; b=JYKmQbrKCDsHxauoJypFkiLT0h6Jgug1DSYi+poxXXWFufbUXTk6KJ2Kt+2XK1GNe8 S4rDGZ25MXBHYIILZASSvlBGv/CXEPBhfEdq8xNvoJhyrVjWKTpyPyDPysR44olyfslV mGw6KuM3u/OUbmJTlOzvIJpWwWPnrvYIUHHFwen7otkcfX3uda6M2XmnnjQVAKBwKZ26 hAz1MIYlsn7XkSI143g67BMmFe1dwr5CYuEf/dZbSG87/0vpxXe+x8aURE3Fu7ZqWC4F kC+umJq3FudKz6uQnMsap2KZcBh6Rnqqu0HebEBEfgQPUczCqToaclrgdDy3kGDcXB9x zlAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=ycRnnbR2xZeCpTpBLfZzGVZNgr0ToOaSohq7rnXna0I=; b=qtuIpi0eAqKhTahK9PVOR6AhQz0A7yqTtIr7e7CtRjSt75D+7U+YXRW3KjsUeCZyKM WvNkSfL6gk2iOXFhdGzABs/wmrS2is6n0YLgs1EhdHE4NNSLQyYkc/QWl4w2m+0olCxS WWkN0bbHV3jMczRCGRXUSqDBxStzh+L+dAJ+wOkeN6fBsIuNq1CosRv8qfGSfZInUDmH rVIh+aHgGEPL5JMOH7+449zohZ5bOifDycYtv/3UmzRBVPzZc23EGtPdrOgPOTqITeR8 AAuSe0abahEq7O9OJBdsK1b4hN+cPHiAUIGe5aqUFRyzt0hiQ9gGaWFZ7SG7kcWANhXP J7oA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wZKqOpZaFaOYV/gHe4QmU7bQCHqw32ej4mpo4di+HzzAUEThj x0lfseyY0p38ucb+a49HXxpFBQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy6hXHCDwsIGBTEOxp8Qe62ivXMZvSl8Sag+97i4QZwzsrGlgdtaP+BQ9p0b1bhpL9o9Q5Etw== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9ad3:: with SMTP id x19mr2587166pfp.158.1597088693871; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [2620:15c:17:3:4a0f:cfff:fe51:6667] ([2620:15c:17:3:4a0f:cfff:fe51:6667]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j10sm13106401pff.171.2020.08.10.12.44.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:44:52 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Abel Wu cc: Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , Joonsoo Kim , Andrew Morton , liu.xiang6@zte.com.cn, "open list:SLAB ALLOCATOR" , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: remove useless kmem_cache_debug In-Reply-To: <20200810080758.940-1-wuyun.wu@huawei.com> Message-ID: References: <20200810080758.940-1-wuyun.wu@huawei.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.23 (DEB 453 2020-06-18) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 988BE1AD1B1 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 10 Aug 2020, wuyun.wu@huawei.com wrote: > From: Abel Wu > > The commit below is incomplete, as it didn't handle the add_full() part. > commit a4d3f8916c65 ("slub: remove useless kmem_cache_debug() before remove_full()") > > Signed-off-by: Abel Wu > --- > mm/slub.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c > index fe81773..0b021b7 100644 > --- a/mm/slub.c > +++ b/mm/slub.c > @@ -2182,7 +2182,8 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page, > } > } else { > m = M_FULL; > - if (kmem_cache_debug(s) && !lock) { > +#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG > + if (!lock) { > lock = 1; > /* > * This also ensures that the scanning of full > @@ -2191,6 +2192,7 @@ static void deactivate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page, > */ > spin_lock(&n->list_lock); > } > +#endif > } > > if (l != m) { This should be functionally safe, I'm wonder if it would make sense to only check for SLAB_STORE_USER here instead of kmem_cache_debug(), however, since that should be the only context in which we need the list_lock for add_full()? It seems more explicit.