On Thu, 24 May 2018, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
> index 9ebe659bd4a5..5bff0571b360 100644
> --- a/include/linux/slab.h
> +++ b/include/linux/slab.h
> @@ -296,11 +296,16 @@ static inline void __check_heap_object(const void *ptr,
> unsigned long n,
> (KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE) : 16)
>
> #ifndef CONFIG_SLOB
> -extern struct kmem_cache *kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH + 1];
> +extern struct kmem_cache *kmalloc_caches[2][KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH + 1];
> #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
> extern struct kmem_cache *kmalloc_dma_caches[KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH + 1];
> #endif
In the existing code we used a different array name for the DMA caches.
This is a similar situation.
I would suggest to use
kmalloc_reclaimable_caches[]
or make it consistent by folding the DMA caches into the array too (but
then note the issues below).
> @@ -536,12 +541,13 @@ static __always_inline void *kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t
> flags)
> #ifndef CONFIG_SLOB
> if (!(flags & GFP_DMA)) {
> unsigned int index = kmalloc_index(size);
> + unsigned int recl = kmalloc_reclaimable(flags);
This is a hotpath reserved for regular allocations. The reclaimable slabs
need to be handled like the DMA slabs. So check for GFP_DMA plus the
reclaimable flags.
> @@ -588,12 +594,13 @@ static __always_inline void *kmalloc_node(size_t size,
> gfp_t flags, int node)
> if (__builtin_constant_p(size) &&
> size <= KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE && !(flags & GFP_DMA)) {
> unsigned int i = kmalloc_index(size);
> + unsigned int recl = kmalloc_reclaimable(flags);
>
Same situation here and additional times below.
