On 07/19/2018 08:16 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> is_dma = !!(flags & __GFP_DMA);
>> #endif
>>
>> - return is_dma;
>> + is_reclaimable = !!(flags & __GFP_RECLAIMABLE);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If an allocation is botth __GFP_DMA and __GFP_RECLAIMABLE, return
> ^^
> typo
>> + * KMALLOC_DMA and effectively ignore __GFP_RECLAIMABLE
>> + */
>> + return (is_dma * 2) + (is_reclaimable & !is_dma);
>
> Maybe
> is_dma * KMALLOC_DMA + (is_reclaimable && !is_dma) * KMALLOC_RECLAIM
> looks better?
I think I meant to do that but forgot, thanks.
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
>> index 4614248ca381..614fb7ab8312 100644
>> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
>> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
>> @@ -1107,10 +1107,21 @@ void __init setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table(void)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> -static void __init new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, slab_flags_t flags)
>> +static void __init
>> +new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, int type, slab_flags_t flags)
>> {
>> - kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_NORMAL][idx] = create_kmalloc_cache(
>> - kmalloc_info[idx].name,
>> + const char *name;
>> +
>> + if (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM) {
>> + flags |= SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT;
>> + name = kasprintf(GFP_NOWAIT, "kmalloc-rcl-%u",
>> + kmalloc_info[idx].size);
>> + BUG_ON(!name);
>
> I'd replace this with WARN_ON() and falling back to kmalloc_info[idx].name.
It's basically a copy/paste of the dma-kmalloc code. If that triggers,
it means somebody was changing the code and introduced a wrong order (as
Mel said). A system that genuinely has no memory for that printf at this
point, would not get very far anyway...
>> + } else {
>> + name = kmalloc_info[idx].name;
>> + }
>> +
>> + kmalloc_caches[type][idx] = create_kmalloc_cache(name,
>> kmalloc_info[idx].size, flags, 0,
>> kmalloc_info[idx].size);
>> }
