On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:52 AM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:56 AM Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > struct fuse_forget_link *fuse_alloc_forget(void)
> > {
> > - return kzalloc(sizeof(struct fuse_forget_link), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + return kzalloc(sizeof(struct fuse_forget_link),
> > + GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | __GFP_RECLAIMABLE);
>
> What does __GFP_RECLAIMBALE signify in slab allocs?
>
Marking these allocations reclaimable hints to mm how much we can
reclaim overall by shrinking, so if it is reclaimable we should mark
it as such.
For d_fsdata, the lifetime is linked to the dentry, which is
reclaimable, so it makes sense here.
> You understand that the forget_link is not reclaimable in the sense,
> that it requires action (reading requests from the fuse device) from
> the userspace filesystem daemon?
>
Ah, I see, whenever we evict the fuse_inode, we queue a forget
command, which usually waits for userspace. So it's not actually
linked to the inode itself, and yeah, if we need userspace to
intervene we shouldn't treat forget_link as reclaimable. I had figured
since fuse_inode is reclaimable, this should be too, but missed that
disconnect, thanks.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
