On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:26:00 +0800 Gavin Guo <gavin.guo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The slub_debug=PU,kmalloc-xx cannot work because in the
> create_kmalloc_caches() the s->name is created after the
> create_kmalloc_cache() is called. The name is NULL in the
> create_kmalloc_cache() so the kmem_cache_flags() would not set the
> slub_debug flags to the s->flags. The fix here set up a kmalloc_names
> string array for the initialization purpose and delete the dynamic
> name creation of kmalloc_caches.
This code is still pretty horrid :(
What's all that stuff fiddling around with size_index[], magic
constants everywhere. Surely there's some way of making this nice and
clear: table-driven, robust to changes.
> +/*
> + * The KMALLOC_LOOP_LOW is the definition for the for loop index start number
> + * to create the kmalloc_caches object in create_kmalloc_caches(). The first
> + * and the second are 96 and 192. You can see that in the kmalloc_index(), if
> + * the KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE <= 32, then return 1 (96). If KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE <= 64,
> + * then return 2 (192). If the KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE is bigger than 64, we don't
> + * need to initialize 96 and 192. Go directly to start the KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW.
> + */
> +#if KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE <= 32
> +#define KMALLOC_LOOP_LOW 1
> +#elif KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE <= 64
> +#define KMALLOC_LOOP_LOW 2
> +#else
> +#define KMALLOC_LOOP_LOW KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW
> +#endif
> +
> #else
> #define ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN __alignof__(unsigned long long)
> +/*
> + * The KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE of slub/slab/slob is 2^3/2^5/2^3. So, even slab is used.
> + * The KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE <= 32. The kmalloc-96 and kmalloc-192 should also be
> + * initialized.
> + */
> +#define KMALLOC_LOOP_LOW 1
Hopefully we can remove the above.
> /*
> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> index 999bb34..05c6439 100644
> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> @@ -784,6 +784,31 @@ struct kmem_cache *kmalloc_slab(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
> }
>
> /*
> + * The kmalloc_names is to make slub_debug=,kmalloc-xx option work in the boot
> + * time. The kmalloc_index() support to 2^26=64MB. So, the final entry of the
> + * table is kmalloc-67108864.
> + */
> +static struct {
> + const char *name;
> + unsigned long size;
> +} const kmalloc_names[] __initconst = {
OK. This table is __initconst, so the kstrtoul() trick isn't needed.
> + {NULL, 0}, {"kmalloc-96", 96},
> + {"kmalloc-192", 192}, {"kmalloc-8", 8},
> + {"kmalloc-16", 16}, {"kmalloc-32", 32},
> + {"kmalloc-64", 64}, {"kmalloc-128", 128},
> + {"kmalloc-256", 256}, {"kmalloc-512", 512},
> + {"kmalloc-1024", 1024}, {"kmalloc-2048", 2048},
> + {"kmalloc-4096", 4096}, {"kmalloc-8192", 8192},
> + {"kmalloc-16384", 16384}, {"kmalloc-32768", 32768},
> + {"kmalloc-65536", 65536}, {"kmalloc-131072", 131072},
> + {"kmalloc-262144", 262144}, {"kmalloc-524288", 524288},
> + {"kmalloc-1048576", 1048576}, {"kmalloc-2097152", 2097152},
> + {"kmalloc-4194304", 4194304}, {"kmalloc-8388608", 8388608},
> + {"kmalloc-16777216", 16777216}, {"kmalloc-33554432", 33554432},
> + {"kmalloc-67108864", 67108864}
> +};
> +
>
> ...
>
> + if (i == 2)
> + i = (KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW - 1);
Can we get rid of this by using something like
static struct {
const char *name;
unsigned long size;
} const kmalloc_names[] __initconst = {
// {NULL, 0},
{"kmalloc-96", 96},
{"kmalloc-192", 192},
#if KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE <= 8
{"kmalloc-8", 8},
#endif
#if KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE <= 16
{"kmalloc-16", 16},
#endif
#if KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE <= 32
{"kmalloc-32", 32},
#endif
{"kmalloc-64", 64},
{"kmalloc-128", 128},
{"kmalloc-256", 256},
{"kmalloc-512", 512},
{"kmalloc-1024", 1024},
{"kmalloc-2048", 2048},
{"kmalloc-4096", 4096},
{"kmalloc-8192", 8192},
...
};
(remove the zeroeth entry from kmalloc_names)
(rename kmalloc_names to kmalloc_info or something: it now holds more
than names)
and make the initialization loop do
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(kmalloc_names); i++)
kmalloc_caches[i] = ...
Why does the initialization code do the
if (!kmalloc_caches[i]) {
test? Can any of these really be initialized? If so, why is it
legitimate for create_kmalloc_caches() to go altering size_index[]
after some caches have already been set up?
If this is all done right, KMALLOC_LOOP_LOW, KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW and
KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH should just go away - we should be able to implement
all the logic using only KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE and MAX_ORDER.
Perhaps the manipulation of size_index[] should be done while we're
initalizing the caches, perhaps driven by additional fields in
kmalloc_info.
Finally, why does create_kmalloc_caches() use GFP_NOWAIT? We're in
__init code! Makes no sense. Or if it *does* make sense, the reason
should be clearly commented.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>