Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Message-ID: <228411f0-96b9-60b4-b734-444ea39a354b@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 20:01:27 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
Cc:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Matthew WilCox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220414085727.643099-1-42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
 <20220414085727.643099-11-42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/23] mm/slab_common: cleanup
 kmem_cache_alloc{,node,lru}
In-Reply-To: <20220414085727.643099-11-42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/14/22 10:57, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> Implement only __kmem_cache_alloc_node() in slab allocators and make
> kmem_cache_alloc{,node,lru} wrapper of it.
> 
> Now that kmem_cache_alloc{,node,lru} is inline function, we should
> use _THIS_IP_ instead of _RET_IP_ for consistency.

Hm yeah looks like this actually fixes some damage of obscured actual
__RET_IP_ by the recent addition and wrapping of __kmem_cache_alloc_lru().

> Signed-off-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

Some nits:

> ---
>  include/linux/slab.h | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  mm/slab.c            | 61 +++++---------------------------------------
>  mm/slob.c            | 27 ++++++--------------
>  mm/slub.c            | 35 +++++--------------------
>  4 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 108 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
> index 143830f57a7f..1b5bdcb0fd31 100644
> --- a/include/linux/slab.h
> +++ b/include/linux/slab.h
> @@ -429,9 +429,52 @@ void *__kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
>  	return __kmalloc_node(size, flags, NUMA_NO_NODE);
>  }
>  
> -void *kmem_cache_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags) __assume_slab_alignment __malloc;
> -void *kmem_cache_alloc_lru(struct kmem_cache *s, struct list_lru *lru,
> -			   gfp_t gfpflags) __assume_slab_alignment __malloc;
> +
> +void *__kmem_cache_alloc_node(struct kmem_cache *s, struct list_lru *lru,
> +			   gfp_t gfpflags, int node, unsigned long caller __maybe_unused)
> +			    __assume_slab_alignment __malloc;

I don't think caller needs to be __maybe_unused in the declaration nor any
of the implementations of __kmem_cache_alloc_node(), all actually pass it on?