Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221109153822.80250-1-sunjunchao2870@gmail.com> <Y2vqs7/Djy22B6XE@sol.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <Y2vqs7/Djy22B6XE@sol.localdomain>
From:   JunChao Sun <sunjunchao2870@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 08:53:26 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHB1NaidN+FquNh2z-UXW8cycM-X5h+6T=XX=fEFyt2VkwXGvw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: replace kmem_cache_create with KMEM_CACHE
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu,
        adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, jack@suse.cz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Yeah, maybe we should remove the SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT flag for static
slab, and 16828088f9e51815 ("ext4: use KMEM_CACHE instead of
kmem_cache_create") have done so. But should we remove
SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT in this patch or belong to a separate patch?

Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> =E4=BA=8E2022=E5=B9=B411=E6=9C=8810=E6=
=97=A5=E5=91=A8=E5=9B=9B 02:00=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 07:38:22AM -0800, JunChao Sun wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/readpage.c b/fs/ext4/readpage.c
> > index 3d21eae267fc..773176e7f9f5 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/readpage.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/readpage.c
> > @@ -410,9 +410,8 @@ int ext4_mpage_readpages(struct inode *inode,
> >
> >  int __init ext4_init_post_read_processing(void)
> >  {
> > -     bio_post_read_ctx_cache =3D
> > -             kmem_cache_create("ext4_bio_post_read_ctx",
> > -                               sizeof(struct bio_post_read_ctx), 0, 0,=
 NULL);
> > +     bio_post_read_ctx_cache =3D KMEM_CACHE(bio_post_read_ctx, SLAB_RE=
CLAIM_ACCOUNT);
> > +
>
> Why use SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT here?
>
> - Eric