On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 1:31 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:36:27 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > We're introducing alloc tagging, which tracks memory allocations by > > callsite. Converting alloc_inode_sb() to a macro means allocations will > > be tracked by its caller, which is a bit more useful. > > I'd have thought that there would be many similar > inlines-which-allocate-memory. Such as, I dunno, jbd2_alloc_inode(). > Do we have to go converting things to macros as people report > misleading or less useful results, or is there some more general > solution to this? Yeah, that's unfortunately inevitable. Even if we had compiler support we would have to add annotations for such inlined functions. For the given example of jbd2_alloc_inode() it's not so bad since it's used only from one location but in general yes, that's something we will have to improve as we find more such cases. > > > --- a/include/linux/fs.h > > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h > > @@ -3083,11 +3083,7 @@ int setattr_should_drop_sgid(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, > > * This must be used for allocating filesystems specific inodes to set > > * up the inode reclaim context correctly. > > */ > > -static inline void * > > -alloc_inode_sb(struct super_block *sb, struct kmem_cache *cache, gfp_t gfp) > > -{ > > - return kmem_cache_alloc_lru(cache, &sb->s_inode_lru, gfp); > > -} > > +#define alloc_inode_sb(_sb, _cache, _gfp) kmem_cache_alloc_lru(_cache, &_sb->s_inode_lru, _gfp) > > Parenthesizing __sb seems sensible here? Ack. Let's wait for more comments and then I'll post fixes. Thanks!