Re: [PATCH v3 07/19] mm: memcg/slab: allocate obj_cgroups for non-root slab pages

[Roman Gushchin]

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 08:27:15PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 4/22/20 10:46 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Allocate and release memory to store obj_cgroup pointers for each
> > non-root slab page. Reuse page->mem_cgroup pointer to store a pointer
> > to the allocated space.
> > 
> > To distinguish between obj_cgroups and memcg pointers in case
> > when it's not obvious which one is used (as in page_cgroup_ino()),
> > let's always set the lowest bit in the obj_cgroup case.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>

Thank you!

> 
> But I have a suggestion:
> 
> ...
> 
> > --- a/include/linux/slub_def.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/slub_def.h
> > @@ -191,4 +191,6 @@ static inline unsigned int obj_to_index(const struct kmem_cache *cache,
> >  				 cache->reciprocal_size);
> >  }
> >  
> > +extern int objs_per_slab(struct kmem_cache *cache);
> > +
> >  #endif /* _LINUX_SLUB_DEF_H */
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index 7f87a0eeafec..63826e460b3f 100644
> 
> ...
> 
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -5992,4 +5992,9 @@ ssize_t slabinfo_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buffer,
> >  {
> >  	return -EIO;
> >  }
> > +
> > +int objs_per_slab(struct kmem_cache *cache)
> > +{
> > +	return oo_objects(cache->oo);
> > +}
> >  #endif /* CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG */
> > 
> 
> It's somewhat unfortunate to function call just for this. Although perhaps
> compiler can be smart enough as charge_slab_page() (that callse objs_per_slab())
> is inline and called from alloc_slab_page() which is also in mm/slub.c.
> 
> But it might be also a bit wasteful in case SLUB doesn't manage to allocate its
> desired order, but smaller. The actual number of objects is then in page->objects.
> 
> So ideally this should use something like objs_per_slab_page(cache, page) where
> SLAB supplies cache->num and SLUB page->objects, both implementations inline,
> and ignoring the other parameter?

Yeah, good point, makes total sense to me. I'll implement it in the next version
of the patchset.

Thank you!