lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/7] mm, slab/slub: introduce kmalloc-reclaimable caches
From
Date
On 07/19/2018 10:23 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> /*
>> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
>> index 4614248ca381..614fb7ab8312 100644
>> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
>> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
>> @@ -1107,10 +1107,21 @@ void __init setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table(void)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> -static void __init new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, slab_flags_t flags)
>> +static void __init
>> +new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, int type, slab_flags_t flags)
>> {
>> - kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_NORMAL][idx] = create_kmalloc_cache(
>> - kmalloc_info[idx].name,
>> + const char *name;
>> +
>> + if (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM) {
>> + flags |= SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT;
>> + name = kasprintf(GFP_NOWAIT, "kmalloc-rcl-%u",
>> + kmalloc_info[idx].size);
>> + BUG_ON(!name);
>> + } else {
>> + name = kmalloc_info[idx].name;
>> + }
>> +
>> + kmalloc_caches[type][idx] = create_kmalloc_cache(name,
>> kmalloc_info[idx].size, flags, 0,
>> kmalloc_info[idx].size);
>> }
>
> I was going to query that BUG_ON but if I'm reading it right, we just
> have to be careful in the future that the "normal" kmalloc cache is always
> initialised before the reclaimable cache or there will be issues.

Yeah, I was just copying how the dma-kmalloc code does it.

>> @@ -1122,22 +1133,25 @@ static void __init new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, slab_flags_t flags)
>> */
>> void __init create_kmalloc_caches(slab_flags_t flags)
>> {
>> - int i;
>> - int type = KMALLOC_NORMAL;
>> + int i, type;
>>
>> - for (i = KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW; i <= KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH; i++) {
>> - if (!kmalloc_caches[type][i])
>> - new_kmalloc_cache(i, flags);
>> + for (type = KMALLOC_NORMAL; type <= KMALLOC_RECLAIM; type++) {
>> + for (i = KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW; i <= KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH; i++) {
>> + if (!kmalloc_caches[type][i])
>> + new_kmalloc_cache(i, type, flags);
>>
>
> I don't see a problem here as such but the values of the KMALLOC_* types
> is important both for this function and the kmalloc_type(). It might be
> worth adding a warning that these functions be examined if updating the
> types but then again, anyone trying and getting it wrong will have a
> broken kernel so;

OK

> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>

Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-20 11:35    [W:0.112 / U:1.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site