It can use 'ac' from ____cache_alloc() in cache_alloc_refill().
This saves call cpu_cache_get() twice.
Signed-off-by: Yejune Deng <[email protected]>
---
mm/slab.c | 12 +++---------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index d0f725637663..4b2dc8f8cc37 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -2896,11 +2896,11 @@ static __always_inline int alloc_block(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
return batchcount;
}
-static void *cache_alloc_refill(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags)
+static void *cache_alloc_refill(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct array_cache *ac, gfp_t flags)
{
int batchcount;
struct kmem_cache_node *n;
- struct array_cache *ac, *shared;
+ struct array_cache *shared;
int node;
void *list = NULL;
struct page *page;
@@ -2908,7 +2908,6 @@ static void *cache_alloc_refill(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags)
check_irq_off();
node = numa_mem_id();
- ac = cpu_cache_get(cachep);
batchcount = ac->batchcount;
if (!ac->touched && batchcount > BATCHREFILL_LIMIT) {
/*
@@ -3045,12 +3044,7 @@ static inline void *____cache_alloc(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags)
}
STATS_INC_ALLOCMISS(cachep);
- objp = cache_alloc_refill(cachep, flags);
- /*
- * the 'ac' may be updated by cache_alloc_refill(),
- * and kmemleak_erase() requires its correct value.
- */
- ac = cpu_cache_get(cachep);
+ objp = cache_alloc_refill(cachep, ac, flags);
out:
/*
--
2.29.0
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:25:17AM +0800, Yejune Deng wrote:
> @@ -3045,12 +3044,7 @@ static inline void *____cache_alloc(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags)
> }
>
> STATS_INC_ALLOCMISS(cachep);
> - objp = cache_alloc_refill(cachep, flags);
> - /*
> - * the 'ac' may be updated by cache_alloc_refill(),
> - * and kmemleak_erase() requires its correct value.
> - */
> - ac = cpu_cache_get(cachep);
> + objp = cache_alloc_refill(cachep, ac, flags);
I think passing 'ac' in is fine (probably? I don't know this code
deeply), but deleting this call to 'ac' is clearly wrong. The comment
even tells you that! I just verified the code, and the comment is
correct.
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:25:17AM +0800, Yejune Deng wrote:
> > @@ -3045,12 +3044,7 @@ static inline void *____cache_alloc(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags)
> > }
> >
> > STATS_INC_ALLOCMISS(cachep);
> > - objp = cache_alloc_refill(cachep, flags);
> > - /*
> > - * the 'ac' may be updated by cache_alloc_refill(),
> > - * and kmemleak_erase() requires its correct value.
> > - */
> > - ac = cpu_cache_get(cachep);
> > + objp = cache_alloc_refill(cachep, ac, flags);
>
> I think passing 'ac' in is fine (probably? I don't know this code
> deeply), but deleting this call to 'ac' is clearly wrong. The comment
> even tells you that! I just verified the code, and the comment is
> correct.
Yep the delete of the ac assignment is wrong.
But even without that issue: There is no point to passing ac to
cache_alloc_refill since cpu_cache_get is rather trivial and does not
even require memory access since "cachep" is usually in some register.