Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 6 Mar 2020 10:37:20 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
        lizefan@huawei.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, shakeelb@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] kernfs: kvmalloc xattr value instead of kmalloc
Message-ID: <20200306093720.GA3630348@kroah.com>
References: <20200305211632.15369-1-dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
 <20200305211632.15369-2-dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
 <58c6e6dafabea52e5b030d18b83c13e4f43ab8e3.camel@perches.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <58c6e6dafabea52e5b030d18b83c13e4f43ab8e3.camel@perches.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 12:49:51AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-03-05 at 13:16 -0800, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > It's not really necessary to have contiguous physical memory for xattr
> > values. We no longer need to worry about higher order allocations
> > failing with kvmalloc, especially because the xattr size limit is at
> > 64K.
> 
> So why use vmalloc memory at all?
> 
> > diff --git a/fs/xattr.c b/fs/xattr.c
> ']
> > @@ -817,7 +817,7 @@ struct simple_xattr *simple_xattr_alloc(const void *value, size_t size)
> >  	if (len < sizeof(*new_xattr))
> >  		return NULL;
> >  
> > -	new_xattr = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	new_xattr = kvmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Why is this sensible?

See the thread on v1

> vmalloc memory is a much more limited resource.

Large chunks of "len" is much more limited :)

thanks,

greg k-h