On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:34:24PM GMT, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:52 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > +
> > +#define KMALLOC_TYPE (SLAB_KMALLOC | SLAB_CACHE_DMA | \
> > + SLAB_ACCOUNT | SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT)
> > +
> > +static __fastpath_inline
> > +bool memcg_slab_post_charge(void *p, gfp_t flags)
> > +{
> > + struct slabobj_ext *slab_exts;
> > + struct kmem_cache *s;
> > + struct folio *folio;
> > + struct slab *slab;
> > + unsigned long off;
> > +
> > + folio = virt_to_folio(p);
> > + if (!folio_test_slab(folio)) {
> > + return __memcg_kmem_charge_page(folio_page(folio, 0), flags,
> > + folio_order(folio)) == 0;
>
> Will this charge the folio again if it was already charged? It seems
> like we avoid this for already charged slab objects below but not
> here.
>
Thanks for catchig this. It's an easy fix and will do in v3.
> > + }
> > +
> > + slab = folio_slab(folio);
> > + s = slab->slab_cache;
> > +
> > + /* Ignore KMALLOC_NORMAL cache to avoid circular dependency. */
> > + if ((s->flags & KMALLOC_TYPE) == SLAB_KMALLOC)
> > + return true;
>
> Would it be clearer to check if the slab cache is one of
> kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_NORMAL]? This should be doable by comparing the
> address of the slab cache with the addresses of
> kmalloc_cache[KMALLOC_NORMAL] (perhaps in a helper). I need to refer
> to your reply to Roman to understand why this works.
>
Do you mean looping over kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_NORMAL] and comparing
the given slab cache address? Nah man why do long loop of pointer
comparisons when we can simply check the flag of the given kmem cache.
Also this array will increase with the recent proposed random kmalloc
caches.
Thanks,
Shakeel
