On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:53 AM Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Slab caches marked with SLAB_ACCOUNT force accounting for every
> allocation from this cache even if __GFP_ACCOUNT flag is not passed.
> Unfortunately, at the moment this flag is not visible in ftrace output,
> and this makes it difficult to analyze the accounted allocations.
>
> This patch adds the __GFP_ACCOUNT flag for allocations from slab caches
> marked with SLAB_ACCOUNT to the ftrace output.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/slab.c | 3 +++
> mm/slub.c | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index 0edb474edef1..4c3da8dfcbdb 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -3492,6 +3492,9 @@ void *__kmem_cache_alloc_lru(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct list_lru *lru,
What about kmem_cache_alloc_node()?
> {
> void *ret = slab_alloc(cachep, lru, flags, cachep->object_size, _RET_IP_);
>
> + if (cachep->flags & SLAB_ACCOUNT)
Should this 'if' be unlikely() or should we trace cachep->flags
explicitly to avoid this branch altogether?
> + flags |= __GFP_ACCOUNT;
> +
> trace_kmem_cache_alloc(_RET_IP_, ret,
> cachep->object_size, cachep->size, flags);
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index ed5c2c03a47a..670bbfef9e49 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -3231,6 +3231,9 @@ void *__kmem_cache_alloc_lru(struct kmem_cache *s, struct list_lru *lru,
> {
> void *ret = slab_alloc(s, lru, gfpflags, _RET_IP_, s->object_size);
>
> + if (s->flags & SLAB_ACCOUNT)
> + gfpflags |= __GFP_ACCOUNT;
> +
> trace_kmem_cache_alloc(_RET_IP_, ret, s->object_size,
> s->size, gfpflags);
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
