Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 13 Oct 2021 09:56:41 -0700
From:   Rustam Kovhaev <rkovhaev@gmail.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, dvyukov@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: use kmem_cache_free() for kmem_cache objects
Message-ID: <YWcPyYk0Rlyvl9a9@nuc10>
References: <17f537b3-e2eb-5d0a-1465-20f3d3c960e2@suse.cz>
 <YVYGcLbu/aDKXkag@nuc10>
 <a9b3cd91-8ee6-a654-b2a8-00c3efb69559@suse.cz>
 <YVZXF3mbaW+Pe+Ji@nuc10>
 <1e0df91-556e-cee5-76f7-285d28fe31@google.com>
 <20211012204320.GP24307@magnolia>
 <20211012204345.GQ24307@magnolia>
 <9db5d16a-2999-07a4-c49d-7417601f834f@suse.cz>
 <20211012232255.GS24307@magnolia>
 <3928ef69-eaac-241c-eb32-d2dd2eab9384@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3928ef69-eaac-241c-eb32-d2dd2eab9384@suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

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.

> 
> > 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().
>