Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:50:08 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     sxwjean@me.com
Cc:     vbabka@suse.cz, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, cl@linux.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, corbet@lwn.net,
        arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@windriver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/slub: correct the default value of
 slub_min_objects in doc
Message-ID: <202312010948.63ACCAAE@keescook>
References: <20231201031505.286117-1-sxwjean@me.com>
 <20231201031505.286117-4-sxwjean@me.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231201031505.286117-4-sxwjean@me.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 11:15:05AM +0800, sxwjean@me.com wrote:
> From: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@windriver.com>
> 
> There is no a value assigned to slub_min_objects by default, it awlays
                                                                  ^^^^^^
> is 0 that is intailized by compiler if no assigned value by command line.
               ^^^^^^^^^^
> min_objects is calculated based on proccessor numbers in
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^
> calculate_order(). For more details, see commit 9b2cd506e5f2 ("slub:
> Calculate min_objects based on number of processors.")

nit: multiple spelling mistakes here. Please double-check commit logs
with a spell checker. :)

> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@windriver.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/mm/slub.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/mm/slub.rst b/Documentation/mm/slub.rst
> index be75971532f5..1f4399581449 100644
> --- a/Documentation/mm/slub.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/mm/slub.rst
> @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ list_lock once in a while to deal with partial slabs. That overhead is
>  governed by the order of the allocation for each slab. The allocations
>  can be influenced by kernel parameters:
>  
> -.. slub_min_objects=x		(default 4)
> +.. slub_min_objects=x		(default 0)
>  .. slub_min_order=x		(default 0)
>  .. slub_max_order=x		(default 3 (PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))

But otherwise, yes, this change matches what the code does.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook