Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/30] mm: slub: trivial cleanups

From: Christoph Lameter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:59:41 -0500

Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>> Christoph?

Sorry for the delay but this moving stuff is unending....

>>> Index: linux-2.6/mm/slub.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/slub.c
>>> +++ linux-2.6/mm/slub.c
>>> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
>>>  /*
>>>   * Lock order:
>>>   *   1. slab_lock(page)
>>> - *   2. slab->list_lock
>>> + *   2. node->list_lock
>>>   *
>>>   *   The slab_lock protects operations on the object of a particular
>>>   *   slab and its metadata in the page struct. If the slab lock

Hmmm..... node? Maybe use the struct name? kmem_cache_node?

>>> @@ -163,11 +163,11 @@ static struct notifier_block slab_notifi
>>>  #endif
>>>  
>>>  static enum {
>>> -	DOWN,		/* No slab functionality available */
>>> +	DOWN = 0,	/* No slab functionality available */
>>>  	PARTIAL,	/* kmem_cache_open() works but kmalloc does not */
>>>  	UP,		/* Everything works but does not show up in sysfs */
>>>  	SYSFS		/* Sysfs up */
>>> -} slab_state = DOWN;
>>> +} slab_state;
>>>  
>>>  /* A list of all slab caches on the system */
>>>  static DECLARE_RWSEM(slub_lock);

It defaults to the first enum value. We also do not initialize statics with zero.

>>> @@ -288,21 +288,22 @@ static inline int slab_index(void *p, st
>>>  static inline struct kmem_cache_order_objects oo_make(int order,
>>>  						unsigned long size)
>>>  {
>>> -	struct kmem_cache_order_objects x = {
>>> -		(order << 16) + (PAGE_SIZE << order) / size
>>> -	};
>>> +	struct kmem_cache_order_objects x;
>>> +
>>> +	x.order = order;
>>> +	x.objects = (PAGE_SIZE << order) / size;
>>>  
>>>  	return x;
>>>  }
>>>  

Another width limitation that will limit the number of objects in a slab to 64k.
Also gcc does not get the fields, wont be able to optimize this as well and it will emit conversion from 16 bit loads.

>>> @@ -1076,8 +1077,7 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct
>>>  
>>>  	flags |= s->allocflags;
>>>  
>>> -	page = alloc_slab_page(flags | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY, node,
>>> -									oo);
>>> +	page = alloc_slab_page(flags | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY, node, oo);
>>>  	if (unlikely(!page)) {
>>>  		oo = s->min;
>>>  		/*

ok.

>>> @@ -1099,8 +1099,7 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct
>>>  	return page;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -static void setup_object(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page,
>>> -				void *object)
>>> +static void setup_object(struct kmem_cache *s, struct page *page, void *object)
>>>  {
>>>  	setup_object_debug(s, page, object);
>>>  	if (unlikely(s->ctor))

Hmmm. You are moving it back on one line and Andrew will cut it up again later? This seems to be oscillating...

>>> @@ -1799,11 +1796,11 @@ static int slub_nomerge;
>>>   * slub_max_order specifies the order where we begin to stop considering the
>>>   * number of objects in a slab as critical. If we reach slub_max_order then
>>>   * we try to keep the page order as low as possible. So we accept more waste
>>> - * of space in favor of a small page order.
>>> + * of space in favour of a small page order.
>>>   *
>>>   * Higher order allocations also allow the placement of more objects in a
>>>   * slab and thereby reduce object handling overhead. If the user has
>>> - * requested a higher mininum order then we start with that one instead of
>>> + * requested a higher minimum order then we start with that one instead of
>>>   * the smallest order which will fit the object.
>>>   */
>>>  static inline int slab_order(int size, int min_objects,

Ack.