Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-110685-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240321163705.3067592-1-surenb@google.com> <20240321163705.3067592-6-surenb@google.com>
 <20240321133147.6d05af5744f9d4da88234fb4@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240321133147.6d05af5744f9d4da88234fb4@linux-foundation.org>
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 14:13:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFtXx=NH-Zykh+dfO2fAASV8eObLLxC4Fu_Zu2Y=idZuw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/37] fs: Convert alloc_inode_sb() to a macro
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: kent.overstreet@linux.dev, mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, 
	hannes@cmpxchg.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, mgorman@suse.de, 
	dave@stgolabs.net, willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, 
	penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, corbet@lwn.net, void@manifault.com, 
	peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, 
	will@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, 
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, peterx@redhat.com, 
	david@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, mcgrof@kernel.org, masahiroy@kernel.org, 
	nathan@kernel.org, dennis@kernel.org, jhubbard@nvidia.com, tj@kernel.org, 
	muchun.song@linux.dev, rppt@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org, 
	pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, yosryahmed@google.com, yuzhao@google.com, 
	dhowells@redhat.com, hughd@google.com, andreyknvl@gmail.com, 
	keescook@chromium.org, ndesaulniers@google.com, vvvvvv@google.com, 
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, ebiggers@google.com, ytcoode@gmail.com, 
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, 
	bsegall@google.com, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, cl@linux.com, 
	penberg@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, 
	glider@google.com, elver@google.com, dvyukov@google.com, 
	songmuchun@bytedance.com, jbaron@akamai.com, aliceryhl@google.com, 
	rientjes@google.com, minchan@google.com, kaleshsingh@google.com, 
	kernel-team@android.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, 
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, 
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 1:31=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundatio=
n.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:36:27 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>=
 wrote:
>
> > From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
> >
> > We're introducing alloc tagging, which tracks memory allocations by
> > callsite. Converting alloc_inode_sb() to a macro means allocations will
> > be tracked by its caller, which is a bit more useful.
>
> I'd have thought that there would be many similar
> inlines-which-allocate-memory.  Such as, I dunno, jbd2_alloc_inode().
> Do we have to go converting things to macros as people report
> misleading or less useful results, or is there some more general
> solution to this?

Yeah, that's unfortunately inevitable. Even if we had compiler support
we would have to add annotations for such inlined functions.
For the given example of jbd2_alloc_inode() it's not so bad since it's
used only from one location but in general yes, that's something we
will have to improve as we find more such cases.

>
> > --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > @@ -3083,11 +3083,7 @@ int setattr_should_drop_sgid(struct mnt_idmap *i=
dmap,
> >   * This must be used for allocating filesystems specific inodes to set
> >   * up the inode reclaim context correctly.
> >   */
> > -static inline void *
> > -alloc_inode_sb(struct super_block *sb, struct kmem_cache *cache, gfp_t=
 gfp)
> > -{
> > -     return kmem_cache_alloc_lru(cache, &sb->s_inode_lru, gfp);
> > -}
> > +#define alloc_inode_sb(_sb, _cache, _gfp) kmem_cache_alloc_lru(_cache,=
 &_sb->s_inode_lru, _gfp)
>
> Parenthesizing __sb seems sensible here?

Ack.
Let's wait for more comments and then I'll post fixes.
Thanks!