On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:38 AM David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for your review comments!
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019, Pengfei Li wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> > index 2aed30deb071..e7903bd28b1f 100644
> > --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> > +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> > @@ -1165,12 +1165,9 @@ void __init setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table(void)
> > size_index[size_index_elem(i)] = 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static void __init
> > +static __always_inline void __init
> > new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, enum kmalloc_cache_type type, slab_flags_t flags)
> > {
> > - if (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM)
> > - flags |= SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT;
> > -
> > kmalloc_caches[type][idx] = create_kmalloc_cache(
> > kmalloc_info[idx].name[type],
> > kmalloc_info[idx].size, flags, 0,
> > @@ -1185,30 +1182,22 @@ new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, enum kmalloc_cache_type type, slab_flags_t flags)
> > void __init create_kmalloc_caches(slab_flags_t flags)
> > {
> > int i;
> > - enum kmalloc_cache_type type;
> >
> > - for (type = KMALLOC_NORMAL; type <= KMALLOC_RECLAIM; type++) {
> > - for (i = 0; i < KMALLOC_CACHE_NUM; i++) {
> > - if (!kmalloc_caches[type][i])
> > - new_kmalloc_cache(i, type, flags);
> > - }
> > - }
> > + for (i = 0; i < KMALLOC_CACHE_NUM; i++) {
> > + if (!kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_NORMAL][i])
> > + new_kmalloc_cache(i, KMALLOC_NORMAL, flags);
> >
> > - /* Kmalloc array is now usable */
> > - slab_state = UP;
> > + new_kmalloc_cache(i, KMALLOC_RECLAIM,
> > + flags | SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT);
>
> This seems less robust, no? Previously we verified that the cache doesn't
> exist before creating a new cache over top of it (for NORMAL and RECLAIM).
> Now we presume that the RECLAIM cache never exists.
>
Agree, this is really less robust.
I have checked the code and found that there is no place to initialize
kmalloc-rcl-xxx before create_kmalloc_caches(). So I assume that
kmalloc-rcl-xxx is NULL.
> Can we just move a check to new_kmalloc_cache() to see if
> kmalloc_caches[type][idx] already exists and, if so, just return? This
> should be more robust and simplify create_kmalloc_caches() slightly more.
For better robustness, I will do it as you suggested in v5.
