From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754095AbeDEWL0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2018 18:11:26 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:56640 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752469AbeDEWLZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2018 18:11:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:11:23 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Al Viro Cc: Roman Gushchin , linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] dcache: account external names as indirectly reclaimable memory Message-Id: <20180405151123.df20d12168d8a38f7a6b02b5@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20180313004532.GU30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20180305133743.12746-1-guro@fb.com> <20180305133743.12746-5-guro@fb.com> <20180312211742.GR30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20180312223632.GA6124@castle> <20180313004532.GU30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:45:32 +0000 Al Viro wrote: > 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. So.. where are we at with this issue?