From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA6CC433ED for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:54:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D90761178 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:54:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7D90761178 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0BDAE6B0036; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:54:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 06DF76B006E; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:54:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E505B6B0070; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:54:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0057.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.57]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D6E6B0036 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin38.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1A4181AF5D7 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:54:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78076628490.38.5554002 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) by imf30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A11E000119 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:54:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=TApLiyiy8kC1+MWlnitS8UqPbKuSkbZMje0719pdLtA=; b=E0LeOVXadZZ/HDH2GsNFaJk1fF AIt1lyfMthKQN72pT7eSDbX29uWxAv3iIaZ4VmgNDY4o+rbUO/KRl90WMOfLbir2Bm/TgZYAbVaOp MX/IOE1Tno821wFRjLLF//7giW1ObiUhzUflJQIySh1hJNGPvFoQTrwFiCqdR7+3fRNLfHmmGf/Lr cCIAZMjZGoNyRIOvYciFvWAOMqauSxk94fxYv4LZALHZoZCjWcrKyIp+wAZGq+MzuZ9xmXLzcgbFy TDWpYtH1mAB1vctD2ArcG4aQJaWLky92k6lmYAWyB/Vtd9XQFL/4oOu4r9///lu0XFNxDK8u3ScGY x2j5BEEw==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lbDrK-006ODW-A1; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:54:00 +0000 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 03:53:58 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Xiongwei Song Cc: cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xiongwei Song Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: append __GFP_COMP flag for trace_malloc Message-ID: <20210427025358.GV235567@casper.infradead.org> References: <1619491400-1904-1-git-send-email-sxwjean@me.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1619491400-1904-1-git-send-email-sxwjean@me.com> X-Stat-Signature: 6xue9unr49zk7j6ey746rbxtq347mygm X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A6A11E000119 Received-SPF: none (infradead.org>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf30; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=casper.infradead.org; client-ip=90.155.50.34 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1619492045-218449 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:43:20AM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote: > From: Xiongwei Song > > When calling kmalloc_order, the flags should include __GFP_COMP here, > so that trace_malloc can trace the precise flags. I suppose that depends on your point of view. Should we report the flags used by the caller, or the flags that we used to allocate memory? And why does it matter?