linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] dcache: account external names as indirectly reclaimable memory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180413142821.GW17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:28:21 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        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 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