On 04/13/2018 03:59 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 13-04-18 22:35:19, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 01:37:43PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> [...]
>>> @@ -1614,9 +1623,11 @@ struct dentry *__d_alloc(struct super_block *sb,
>>> const struct qstr *name)
>>> name = &slash_name;
>>> dname = dentry->d_iname;
>>> } else if (name->len > DNAME_INLINE_LEN-1) {
>>> - size_t size = offsetof(struct external_name, name[1]);
>>> - struct external_name *p = kmalloc(size + name->len,
>>> - GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
>>> + struct external_name *p;
>>> +
>>> + reclaimable = offsetof(struct external_name, name[1]) +
>>> + name->len;
>>> + p = kmalloc(reclaimable, GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
>>
>> Can't we use kmem_cache_alloc with own cache created with
>> SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT
>> if they are reclaimable?
>
> No, because names have different sizes and so we would basically have to
> duplicate many caches.
We would need kmalloc-reclaimable-X variants. It could be worth it,
especially if we find more similar usages. I suspect they would be more
useful than the existing dma-kmalloc-X :)
Maybe create both (dma and reclaimable) on demand?
