[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180411192448.GD22494@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:24:48 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] slab: __GFP_ZERO is incompatible with a
constructor
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:44:23AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -2725,7 +2726,7 @@ static __always_inline void *slab_alloc_node(struct kmem_cache *s,
> > stat(s, ALLOC_FASTPATH);
> > }
> >
> > - if (unlikely(gfpflags & __GFP_ZERO) && object)
> > + if (unlikely(gfpflags & __GFP_ZERO) && object && slab_no_ctor(s))
> > memset(object, 0, s->object_size);
> >
> > slab_post_alloc_hook(s, gfpflags, 1, &object);
>
> Please put this in a code path that is enabled by specifying
>
> slub_debug
>
> on the kernel command line.
I don't understand. First, I had:
if (unlikely(gfpflags & __GFP_ZERO) && object && !WARN_ON_ONCE(s->ctor))
and you didn't like that because it was putting checking into a (semi)fast
path. Now you want me to add a check for slub_debug somewhere? I dont
see an existing one I can leverage that will hit on every allocation.
Perhaps I'm missing something.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists