On Wed 09-02-22 11:57:42, Qian Cai wrote:
> Since the linux-next commit 120aa5e57479 (mm: Check for
> SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU and __GFP_ZERO slab allocation), we will get a
> boot warning. Avoid it by calling synchronize_rcu() before the zeroing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
No, the performance impact of this would be just horrible. Can you
ellaborate a bit why SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU + __GFP_ZERO is a problem and why
synchronize_rcu() would be needed here before the memset() please? I mean
how is zeroing here any different from the memory just being used?
Honza
> ---
> fs/jbd2/journal.c | 9 ++++++---
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/jbd2/journal.c b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> index c2cf74b01ddb..323112de5921 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> @@ -2861,15 +2861,18 @@ static struct journal_head *journal_alloc_journal_head(void)
> #ifdef CONFIG_JBD2_DEBUG
> atomic_inc(&nr_journal_heads);
> #endif
> - ret = kmem_cache_zalloc(jbd2_journal_head_cache, GFP_NOFS);
> + ret = kmem_cache_alloc(jbd2_journal_head_cache, GFP_NOFS);
> if (!ret) {
> jbd_debug(1, "out of memory for journal_head\n");
> pr_notice_ratelimited("ENOMEM in %s, retrying.\n", __func__);
> - ret = kmem_cache_zalloc(jbd2_journal_head_cache,
> + ret = kmem_cache_alloc(jbd2_journal_head_cache,
> GFP_NOFS | __GFP_NOFAIL);
> }
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret) {
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + memset(ret, 0, sizeof(*ret));
> spin_lock_init(&ret->b_state_lock);
> + }
> return ret;
> }
>
> --
> 2.30.2
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
