On Thu, 02 Sep 2021 01:28:01 +0100,
Jia He <justin.he@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Inspired by commit 254272ce6505 ("kvm: x86: Add memcg accounting to KVM
> allocations"), it would be better to make arm64 KVM consistent with
> common kvm codes.
>
> The memory allocations of VM scope should be charged into VM process
> cgroup, hence change GFP_KERNEL to GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT.
>
> There remained a few cases since these allocations are global, not in VM
> scope.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin.he@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 6 ++++--
> arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> index e9a2b8f27792..9d6f5bcaddef 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -289,10 +289,12 @@ long kvm_arch_dev_ioctl(struct file *filp,
>
> struct kvm *kvm_arch_alloc_vm(void)
> {
> + unsigned long sz = sizeof(struct kvm);
If you are going to introduce an extra variable, please use the
correct type (size_t).
> +
> if (!has_vhe())
> - return kzalloc(sizeof(struct kvm), GFP_KERNEL);
> + return kzalloc(sz, GFP_KERNEL | GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
Why both GFP_KERNEL and GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT?
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
