RE: [PATCH 3/3] mm/slub: correct the default value of slub_min_objects in doc

[Song, Xiongwei]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 1:50 AM
> To: sxwjean@xxxxxx
> Cc: vbabka@xxxxxxx; 42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx; cl@xxxxxxxxx; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx;
> penberg@xxxxxxxxxx; rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx; iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx;
> roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx; corbet@xxxxxxx; arnd@xxxxxxxx; akpm@linux-
> foundation.org; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Song, Xiongwei <Xiongwei.Song@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/slub: correct the default value of slub_min_objects in doc
> 
> CAUTION: This email comes from a non Wind River email account!
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
> 
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 11:15:05AM +0800, sxwjean@xxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > 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. :)

Sorry for those mistakes. Will update.

Regards,
Xiongwei
> 
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  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