On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:45:32 +0000 Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:36:38PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> > Ah, I see...
> >
> > I think, it's better to account them when we're actually freeing,
> > otherwise we will have strange path:
> > (indirectly) reclaimable -> unreclaimable -> free
> >
> > Do you agree?
>
> > +static void __d_free_external_name(struct rcu_head *head)
> > +{
> > + struct external_name *name;
> > +
> > + name = container_of(head, struct external_name, u.head);
> > +
> > + mod_node_page_state(page_pgdat(virt_to_page(name)),
> > + NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES,
> > + -ksize(name));
> > +
> > + kfree(name);
> > +}
>
> Maybe, but then you want to call that from __d_free_external() and from
> failure path in __d_alloc() as well. Duplicating something that convoluted
> and easy to get out of sync is just asking for trouble.
So.. where are we at with this issue?
