On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 03:11:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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?
I assume that commit 0babe6fe1da3 ("dcache: fix indirectly reclaimable memory accounting")
address the issue.
__d_free_external_name() is now called from all release paths (including __d_free_external())
and is the only place where NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES is decremented.
__d_alloc()'s error path is slightly different, because I bump NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES
in a very last moment, when it's already clear, that no errors did occur.
So we don't need to increase and decrease the counter back and forth.
Thank you!
