[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180313004532.GU30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:45:32 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] dcache: account external names as indirectly
reclaimable memory
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:36:38PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Ah, I see...
>
> I think, it's better to account them when we're actually freeing,
> otherwise we will have strange path:
> (indirectly) reclaimable -> unreclaimable -> free
>
> Do you agree?
> +static void __d_free_external_name(struct rcu_head *head)
> +{
> + struct external_name *name;
> +
> + name = container_of(head, struct external_name, u.head);
> +
> + mod_node_page_state(page_pgdat(virt_to_page(name)),
> + NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES,
> + -ksize(name));
> +
> + kfree(name);
> +}
Maybe, but then you want to call that from __d_free_external() and from
failure path in __d_alloc() as well. Duplicating something that convoluted
and easy to get out of sync is just asking for trouble.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists