On 7/29/26 11:14 PM, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
> On 7/29/26 10:20, Harry Yoo (Oracle) wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> 8: 8e69c83a1e52 ! 8: aeaf2ab60046 slub_kunit: extend the test for
>> kfree_rcu_nolock()
>> @@ lib/tests/slub_kunit.c: struct test_nolock_context {
>> - gfp_t gfp = (i % 2) ? GFP_KERNEL :
>> GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT;
>> + gfp_t gfp = (i & 1) ? GFP_KERNEL :
>> GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT;
>>
>> - objects[j] = kmalloc_obj(*objects[j], gfp);
>> +- objects[j] = kmalloc(64, gfp);
>> ++ objects[j] = kmalloc_obj(*objects[j], gfp);
>> if (!objects[j]) {
>> + j--;
>> + while (j >= 0)
>> @@ lib/tests/slub_kunit.c: static void test_kmalloc_kfree(void)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]
>> [1]
>> Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]
>> [2]
>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Harry Yoo (Oracle) <[email protected]>
>> Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]
>> Signed-off-by: Harry Yoo (Oracle) <[email protected]>
>> Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]
>> [1]
>> Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]
>> [2]
>> Suggested-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Harry Yoo (Oracle) <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Harry Yoo (Oracle) <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Harry Yoo (Oracle) <[email protected]>
>
> Wonder what produced this weird block of assorted trailers? "b4 prep
> --compare-to vX" never did that for me?
Interesting. I checked it again with `b4 prep --compare-to v4`, but the
command didn't produce this. Looking at the cover letter
`b4 prep --edit-cover` It's not even there.
Probably it was produced during b4 send --no-sign? hmm...
>> ---
>> Harry Yoo (Oracle) (8):
>> mm/slab, slub_kunit: register kprobe to trigger _nolock APIs
>> mm/slab: handle the !allow_spin case in kfree_rcu_sheaf()
>> mm/slab: use call_rcu() in unknown context if irqs are enabled
>> mm/slab: extend deferred free mechanism to handle rcu sheaves
>> mm/slab: allow kfree_rcu_sheaf() on PREEMPT_RT
>> mm/slab: introduce struct kvfree_rcu_head for kvfree_rcu batching
>> mm/slab: introduce kfree_rcu_nolock()
>> slub_kunit: extend the test for kfree_rcu_nolock()
>>
>> include/linux/rcupdate.h | 32 ++++++-
>> include/linux/slab.h | 16 +---
>> include/linux/types.h | 8 ++
>> include/trace/events/rcu.h | 2 +-
>> lib/tests/slub_kunit.c | 190 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> mm/slab.h | 52 ++++++++++-
>> mm/slab_common.c | 81 +++++++++++++----
>> mm/slub.c | 220
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>> 8 files changed, 433 insertions(+), 168 deletions(-)
>
> Applied to slab/for-7.3/kfree_rcu_nolock and merged go slab/for-next, thanks!
Thanks a lot!
> Used slab/for-next-fixes as a base for a better topic branch indepdencence.
Ah, I see. thanks.
So slab/for-next is not a good base unless it depends too much on
existing commits on the branch?
And usually it's better to use the base (slab/for-next-fixes,
in this case) of slab/for-next as a base?
>> ---
>> base-commit: ffc64805cebac330b2a60b2f1f144fcc35b8ab46
>> change-id: 20260615-kfree_rcu_nolock-e5502555992f
>>
>> Best regards,
--
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon
