Re: [PATCH 1/3] slab: decouple pointer to barn from kmem_cache_node

[Harry Yoo]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 10:46:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
> On 3/13/26 10:27, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 09:25:55AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
> >> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> >> index 20cb4f3b636d..609a183f8533 100644
> >> --- a/mm/slub.c
> >> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> >> @@ -436,26 +436,24 @@ struct kmem_cache_node {
> >>  /*
> >> - * Get the barn of the current cpu's closest memory node. It may not exist on
> >> - * systems with memoryless nodes but without CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
> >> + * Get the barn of the current cpu's memory node. It may be a memoryless node.
> >>   */
> >>  static inline struct node_barn *get_barn(struct kmem_cache *s)
> >>  {
> >> -	struct kmem_cache_node *n = get_node(s, numa_mem_id());
> >> -
> >> -	if (!n)
> >> -		return NULL;
> >> -
> >> -	return n->barn;
> >> +	return get_barn_node(s, numa_node_id());
> >>  }
> > 
> > Previously, memoryless nodes on architectures w/ CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
> > shared the barn of the nearest NUMA node with memory.
> > 
> > But now memoryless nodes will have their own barns (after patch 2)
> > regardless of CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES, and that's intentional, right?
> 
> Yeah it improves their caching capacity, but good point, will mention it in
> the changelog.

Thanks! just wanted to check that it was intentional.

with that, please feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@xxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon