On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:36:48PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 8/1/22 15:26, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 05:23:29PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 7/12/22 15:39, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> >> > There is no caller of kmalloc_order_trace() except kmalloc_large().
> >> > Fold it into kmalloc_large() and remove kmalloc_order{,_trace}().
> >> >
> >> > Also add tracepoint in kmalloc_large() that was previously
> >> > in kmalloc_order_trace().
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> >>
> >
> > Thank you for review.
> >
> >> Hmm noticed a small change in how we call trace_kmalloc() which will now
> >> include the __GFP_COMP.
> >
> > Good catch.
> >
> >> I think we could just call alloc_pages() from
> >> kmalloc_large() with flags | __GFP_COMP instead of doing flags |=
> >> __GFP_COMP; first.
> >
> > I'll consider that in next version.
> >
> >> AFAICS both kasan_kmalloc_large() and kmemleak_alloc()
> >> will filter it out anyway.
> >
> > AFAIK not passing __GFP_COMP to both kasan_kmalloc_large()
> > and kmemleak_alloc() will affect their behavior.
>
> You mean "will NOT affect...", right?
Ah, yes. mistake.
>
> > - kasan_kmalloc_large() only checks if flag has __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM,
> > - kmemleak_alloc() only use it to allocate kmemleak_object from
> > slab/pool, which does not require __GFP_COMP.
> >
> > simply calling
> > alloc_pages() with flags | GFP_COMP
> > kasan_kmalloc_large() with flags
> > kmemleak_alloc() with flags
> > trace_kmalloc() with flags
> > will be okay.
> >
> > BTW this is fixed after patch 9.
>
> Ah, right. __kmalloc_large_node_notrace() does the same flags |=
> __GFP_COMP; but the tracepoint is outside and unaffected.
I'll reflect your suggestion anyway.
--
Thanks,
Hyeonggon
