On 07/19/2018 08:16 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:

quoted

 	is_dma = !!(flags & __GFP_DMA);
 #endif
 
-	return is_dma;
+	is_reclaimable = !!(flags & __GFP_RECLAIMABLE);
+
+	/*
+	 * If an allocation is botth __GFP_DMA and __GFP_RECLAIMABLE, return

                                 ^^
			       typo

quoted

+	 * KMALLOC_DMA and effectively ignore __GFP_RECLAIMABLE
+	 */
+	return (is_dma * 2) + (is_reclaimable & !is_dma);

Maybe
is_dma * KMALLOC_DMA + (is_reclaimable && !is_dma) * KMALLOC_RECLAIM
looks better?

I think I meant to do that but forgot, thanks.

quoted

 }
 
 /*

diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
index 4614248ca381..614fb7ab8312 100644
--- a/mm/slab_common.c
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c

@@ -1107,10 +1107,21 @@ void __init setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table(void)
 	}
 }
 
-static void __init new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, slab_flags_t flags)
+static void __init
+new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, int type, slab_flags_t flags)
 {
-	kmalloc_caches[KMALLOC_NORMAL][idx] = create_kmalloc_cache(
-					kmalloc_info[idx].name,
+	const char *name;
+
+	if (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM) {
+		flags |= SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT;
+		name = kasprintf(GFP_NOWAIT, "kmalloc-rcl-%u",
+						kmalloc_info[idx].size);
+		BUG_ON(!name);

I'd replace this with WARN_ON() and falling back to kmalloc_info[idx].name.

It's basically a copy/paste of the dma-kmalloc code. If that triggers,
it means somebody was changing the code and introduced a wrong order (as
Mel said). A system that genuinely has no memory for that printf at this
point, would not get very far anyway...

quoted

+	} else {
+		name = kmalloc_info[idx].name;
+	}
+
+	kmalloc_caches[type][idx] = create_kmalloc_cache(name,
 					kmalloc_info[idx].size, flags, 0,
 					kmalloc_info[idx].size);
 }