Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Message-ID: <457899ac-baab-e976-44ec-dfdeb23be031@suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 17:13:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] supplement of slab allocator removal
Content-Language: en-US
To:     sxwjean@me.com, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, cl@linux.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc:     penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
        roman.gushchin@linux.dev, corbet@lwn.net, keescook@chromium.org,
        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>
References: <20231203001501.126339-1-sxwjean@me.com>
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20231203001501.126339-1-sxwjean@me.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/3/23 01:14, sxwjean@me.com wrote:
> From: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@windriver.com>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Patch 1 is to remove an unused parameter. This patch actually is v3, but
> it is not reasonable to add v3 tag in the cover letter, so I put the
> change history inside the patch.
> 
> ---
> Patch 2 is to replace slub_$params with slab_$params.
> Vlastimil Babka pointed out we should use "slab_$param" as the primary
> prefix for long-term plan. Please see [1] for more information.
> 
> This patch is to do that. However, the patch is big, I'm not sure if
> everything is proper in it, so I added "RFC" in the patch title. For more
> information please see the commit message of patch.
> 
> I did the basic tests with qemu, which passed values by sl[au]b_max_order,
> sl[au]b_min_order, sl[au]b_min_objects and sl[au]b_debug in command line.
> The values looks correct by printing them out before calculating orders.
> 
> One thing I'm not sure about the forth parameter of __setup_param(),
> Is it correct to set the parameter to 0 directly?

Yep it's fine.