On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:36:38PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Ah, I see...
> I think, it's better to account them when we're actually freeing,
> otherwise we will have strange path:
> (indirectly) reclaimable -> unreclaimable -> free
> Do you agree?
> +static void __d_free_external_name(struct rcu_head *head)
> + struct external_name *name;
> + name = container_of(head, struct external_name, u.head);
> + mod_node_page_state(page_pgdat(virt_to_page(name)),
> + NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES,
> + -ksize(name));
> + kfree(name);
Maybe, but then you want to call that from __d_free_external() and from
failure path in __d_alloc() as well. Duplicating something that convoluted
and easy to get out of sync is just asking for trouble.