On Fri 13-04-18 16:20:00, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> 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 :)
I am still not sure why __GFP_RECLAIMABLE cannot be made work as
expected and account slab pages as SLAB_RECLAIMABLE
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
