Re: [PATCH] memcg: page_alloc: skip bulk allocator for __GFP_ACCOUNT

[Shakeel Butt]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:16 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed 13-10-21 12:43:38, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 668edb16446a..b3acad4615d3 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -5215,6 +5215,10 @@ unsigned long __alloc_pages_bulk(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid,
> >       unsigned int alloc_flags = ALLOC_WMARK_LOW;
> >       int nr_populated = 0, nr_account = 0;
> >
> > +     /* Bulk allocator does not support memcg accounting. */
> > +     if (unlikely(gfp & __GFP_ACCOUNT))
> > +             goto out;
>
> Did you mean goto failed here? This would break some which do not
> have any fallback. E.g. xfs_buf_alloc_pages but likely more.
>
> Sorry I could have been more specific when talking about bypassing the
> bulk allocator. It is quite confusing because the bulk allocator
> interface consists of the bulk allocator and the fallback to the normal
> page allocator.
>

I did consider 'goto failed' here but for that I have to move
__GFP_ACCOUNT check after the "Already populated array" check in the
function. Basically what's the point of doing other operations
(incrementing nr_populated) if we are gonna skip bulk anyways.

Regarding xfs_buf_alloc_pages(), it is not using __GFP_ACCOUNT and
vmalloc() is the only __GFP_ACCOUNT user at this point. So, not an
issue for now but I suppose it is better to be future-proof and do the
'goto failed'.

Let me know what you think.