On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 1:02 PM Waiman Long <llong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 5/4/21 3:37 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 6:24 AM Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Since the merging of the new slab memory controller in v5.9, the page
> >> structure may store a pointer to obj_cgroup pointer array for slab pages.
> >> Currently, only the __GFP_ACCOUNT bit is masked off. However, the array
> >> is not readily reclaimable and doesn't need to come from the DMA buffer.
> >> So those GFP bits should be masked off as well.
> >>
> >> Do the flag bit clearing at memcg_alloc_page_obj_cgroups() to make sure
> >> that it is consistently applied no matter where it is called.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 286e04b8ed7a ("mm: memcg/slab: allocate obj_cgroups for non-root slab pages")
> >> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> mm/memcontrol.c | 8 ++++++++
> >> mm/slab.h | 1 -
> >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> >> index c100265dc393..5e3b4f23b830 100644
> >> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> >> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> >> @@ -2863,6 +2863,13 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(struct obj_cgroup *objcg)
> >> }
> >>
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> >> +/*
> >> + * The allocated objcg pointers array is not accounted directly.
> >> + * Moreover, it should not come from DMA buffer and is not readily
> >> + * reclaimable. So those GFP bits should be masked off.
> >> + */
> >> +#define OBJCGS_CLEAR_MASK (__GFP_DMA | __GFP_RECLAIMABLE | __GFP_ACCOUNT)
> > What about __GFP_DMA32? Does it matter? It seems like DMA32 requests
> > go to normal caches.
>
> I included __GFP_DMA32 in my first draft patch. However, __GFP_DMA32 is
> not considered in determining the right kmalloc_type() (patch 2), so I
> took it out to make it consistent. I can certainly add it back.
>
No this is fine and DMA32 question is unrelated to this patch series.
