On 5/16/22 21:10, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> 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?
Hm I think ideally the tracepoint accepts cachep instead of current
cachep->*size parameters and does the necessary extraction and
modification in its fast_assign.
>
>> + 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
>>
