diff mbox series

[06/12] mm, slub: don't create kmalloc-rcl caches with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY

Message ID 20221121171202.22080-7-vbabka@suse.cz
State New
Headers
Series Introduce CONFIG_SLUB_TINY and deprecate SLOB |

Commit Message

Vlastimil Babka Nov. 21, 2022, 5:11 p.m. UTC 
  Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation
by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory
overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse,
and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway.

Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the
regular ones.

Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
---
 include/linux/slab.h |  4 ++++
 mm/slab_common.c     | 10 ++++++++--
 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Vlastimil Babka Nov. 23, 2022, 1:53 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 11/21/22 18:11, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation
> by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory
> overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse,
> and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway.
> 
> Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the
> regular ones.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

Fixed up in response to lkp report for a MEMCG_KMEM+SLUB_TINY combo:
---8<---
From c1ec0b924850a2863d061f316615d596176f15bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:19:28 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 06/12] mm, slub: don't create kmalloc-rcl caches with
 CONFIG_SLUB_TINY

Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation
by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory
overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse,
and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway.

Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the
regular ones.

Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
---
 include/linux/slab.h |  9 +++++++--
 mm/slab_common.c     | 10 ++++++++--
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
index 45efc6c553b8..ae2d19ec8467 100644
--- a/include/linux/slab.h
+++ b/include/linux/slab.h
@@ -336,12 +336,17 @@ enum kmalloc_cache_type {
 #endif
 #ifndef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
 	KMALLOC_CGROUP = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
-#else
-	KMALLOC_CGROUP,
 #endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
+	KMALLOC_RECLAIM = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
+#else
 	KMALLOC_RECLAIM,
+#endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
 	KMALLOC_DMA,
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
+	KMALLOC_CGROUP,
 #endif
 	NR_KMALLOC_TYPES
 };
diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
index a8cb5de255fc..907d52963806 100644
--- a/mm/slab_common.c
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c
@@ -770,10 +770,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmalloc_size_roundup);
 #define KMALLOC_CGROUP_NAME(sz)
 #endif
 
+#ifndef CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
+#define KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(sz)	.name[KMALLOC_RECLAIM] = "kmalloc-rcl-" #sz,
+#else
+#define KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(sz)
+#endif
+
 #define INIT_KMALLOC_INFO(__size, __short_size)			\
 {								\
 	.name[KMALLOC_NORMAL]  = "kmalloc-" #__short_size,	\
-	.name[KMALLOC_RECLAIM] = "kmalloc-rcl-" #__short_size,	\
+	KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(__short_size)				\
 	KMALLOC_CGROUP_NAME(__short_size)			\
 	KMALLOC_DMA_NAME(__short_size)				\
 	.size = __size,						\
@@ -859,7 +865,7 @@ void __init setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table(void)
 static void __init
 new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, enum kmalloc_cache_type type, slab_flags_t flags)
 {
-	if (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM) {
+	if ((KMALLOC_RECLAIM != KMALLOC_NORMAL) && (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM)) {
 		flags |= SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT;
 	} else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM) && (type == KMALLOC_CGROUP)) {
 		if (mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled()) {
Hyeonggon Yoo Nov. 24, 2022, 12:06 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:53:43PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/21/22 18:11, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation
> > by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory
> > overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse,
> > and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway.
> > 
> > Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the
> > regular ones.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> 
> Fixed up in response to lkp report for a MEMCG_KMEM+SLUB_TINY combo:
> ---8<---
> From c1ec0b924850a2863d061f316615d596176f15bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:19:28 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 06/12] mm, slub: don't create kmalloc-rcl caches with
>  CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
> 
> Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation
> by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory
> overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse,
> and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway.
> 
> Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the
> regular ones.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> ---
>  include/linux/slab.h |  9 +++++++--
>  mm/slab_common.c     | 10 ++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
> index 45efc6c553b8..ae2d19ec8467 100644
> --- a/include/linux/slab.h
> +++ b/include/linux/slab.h
> @@ -336,12 +336,17 @@ enum kmalloc_cache_type {
>  #endif
>  #ifndef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
>  	KMALLOC_CGROUP = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
> -#else
> -	KMALLOC_CGROUP,
>  #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
> +	KMALLOC_RECLAIM = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
> +#else
>  	KMALLOC_RECLAIM,
> +#endif
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
>  	KMALLOC_DMA,
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> +	KMALLOC_CGROUP,
>  #endif
>  	NR_KMALLOC_TYPES
>  };

Can you please elaborate what the lkp report was about
and how you fixed it? I'm not getting what the problem of previous
version is.

> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> index a8cb5de255fc..907d52963806 100644
> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> @@ -770,10 +770,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmalloc_size_roundup);
>  #define KMALLOC_CGROUP_NAME(sz)
>  #endif
>  
> +#ifndef CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
> +#define KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(sz)	.name[KMALLOC_RECLAIM] = "kmalloc-rcl-" #sz,
> +#else
> +#define KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(sz)
> +#endif
> +
>  #define INIT_KMALLOC_INFO(__size, __short_size)			\
>  {								\
>  	.name[KMALLOC_NORMAL]  = "kmalloc-" #__short_size,	\
> -	.name[KMALLOC_RECLAIM] = "kmalloc-rcl-" #__short_size,	\
> +	KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(__short_size)				\
>  	KMALLOC_CGROUP_NAME(__short_size)			\
>  	KMALLOC_DMA_NAME(__short_size)				\
>  	.size = __size,						\
> @@ -859,7 +865,7 @@ void __init setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table(void)
>  static void __init
>  new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, enum kmalloc_cache_type type, slab_flags_t flags)
>  {
> -	if (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM) {
> +	if ((KMALLOC_RECLAIM != KMALLOC_NORMAL) && (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM)) {
>  		flags |= SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT;
>  	} else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM) && (type == KMALLOC_CGROUP)) {
>  		if (mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled()) {
> -- 
> 2.38.1
>

Otherwise looks fine to me.
Vlastimil Babka Nov. 24, 2022, 12:12 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 11/24/22 13:06, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:53:43PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 11/21/22 18:11, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> > Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation
>> > by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory
>> > overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse,
>> > and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway.
>> > 
>> > Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the
>> > regular ones.
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>> 
>> Fixed up in response to lkp report for a MEMCG_KMEM+SLUB_TINY combo:
>> ---8<---
>> From c1ec0b924850a2863d061f316615d596176f15bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:19:28 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH 06/12] mm, slub: don't create kmalloc-rcl caches with
>>  CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
>> 
>> Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation
>> by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory
>> overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse,
>> and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway.
>> 
>> Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the
>> regular ones.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/slab.h |  9 +++++++--
>>  mm/slab_common.c     | 10 ++++++++--
>>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
>> index 45efc6c553b8..ae2d19ec8467 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/slab.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/slab.h
>> @@ -336,12 +336,17 @@ enum kmalloc_cache_type {
>>  #endif
>>  #ifndef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
>>  	KMALLOC_CGROUP = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
>> -#else
>> -	KMALLOC_CGROUP,
>>  #endif
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
>> +	KMALLOC_RECLAIM = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
>> +#else
>>  	KMALLOC_RECLAIM,
>> +#endif
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
>>  	KMALLOC_DMA,
>> +#endif
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
>> +	KMALLOC_CGROUP,
>>  #endif
>>  	NR_KMALLOC_TYPES
>>  };
> 
> Can you please elaborate what the lkp report was about
> and how you fixed it? I'm not getting what the problem of previous
> version is.

Report here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/202211231949.nIyAWKam-lkp@intel.com/

Problem is that if the preprocessing results in e.g.
KMALLOC_NORMAL = 0,
KMALLOC_DMA = KMALLOC_NORMAL
KMALLOC_CGROUP,
KMALLOC_RECLAIM = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
NR_KMALLOC_TYPES

then NR_KMALLOC_TYPES is not 2, but 1, because the enum's internal counter
got reset to 0 by KMALLOC_RECLAIM = KMALLOC_NORMAL. A common gotcha :/
Hyeonggon Yoo Nov. 24, 2022, 12:55 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 01:12:13PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/24/22 13:06, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:53:43PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 11/21/22 18:11, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> > Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation
> >> > by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory
> >> > overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse,
> >> > and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway.
> >> > 
> >> > Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the
> >> > regular ones.
> >> > 
> >> > Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> >> 
> >> Fixed up in response to lkp report for a MEMCG_KMEM+SLUB_TINY combo:
> >> ---8<---
> >> From c1ec0b924850a2863d061f316615d596176f15bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> >> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:19:28 +0100
> >> Subject: [PATCH 06/12] mm, slub: don't create kmalloc-rcl caches with
> >>  CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
> >> 
> >> Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation
> >> by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory
> >> overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse,
> >> and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway.
> >> 
> >> Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the
> >> regular ones.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> >> ---
> >>  include/linux/slab.h |  9 +++++++--
> >>  mm/slab_common.c     | 10 ++++++++--
> >>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
> >> index 45efc6c553b8..ae2d19ec8467 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/slab.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/slab.h
> >> @@ -336,12 +336,17 @@ enum kmalloc_cache_type {
> >>  #endif
> >>  #ifndef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> >>  	KMALLOC_CGROUP = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
> >> -#else
> >> -	KMALLOC_CGROUP,
> >>  #endif
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
> >> +	KMALLOC_RECLAIM = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
> >> +#else
> >>  	KMALLOC_RECLAIM,
> >> +#endif
> >>  #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
> >>  	KMALLOC_DMA,
> >> +#endif
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> >> +	KMALLOC_CGROUP,
> >>  #endif
> >>  	NR_KMALLOC_TYPES
> >>  };
> > 
> > Can you please elaborate what the lkp report was about
> > and how you fixed it? I'm not getting what the problem of previous
> > version is.
> 
> Report here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/202211231949.nIyAWKam-lkp@intel.com/
> 
> Problem is that if the preprocessing results in e.g.
> KMALLOC_NORMAL = 0,
> KMALLOC_DMA = KMALLOC_NORMAL
> KMALLOC_CGROUP,
> KMALLOC_RECLAIM = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
> NR_KMALLOC_TYPES
> 
> then NR_KMALLOC_TYPES is not 2, but 1, because the enum's internal counter
> got reset to 0 by KMALLOC_RECLAIM = KMALLOC_NORMAL. A common gotcha :/

Thanks for quick and kind explanation :)
That was easy to be missed.
Hyeonggon Yoo Nov. 24, 2022, 1:23 p.m. UTC | #5 
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:53:43PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/21/22 18:11, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation
> > by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory
> > overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse,
> > and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway.
> > 
> > Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the
> > regular ones.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> 
> Fixed up in response to lkp report for a MEMCG_KMEM+SLUB_TINY combo:
> ---8<---
> From c1ec0b924850a2863d061f316615d596176f15bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:19:28 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 06/12] mm, slub: don't create kmalloc-rcl caches with
>  CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
> 
> Distinguishing kmalloc(__GFP_RECLAIMABLE) can help against fragmentation
> by grouping pages by mobility, but on tiny systems the extra memory
> overhead of separate set of kmalloc-rcl caches will probably be worse,
> and mobility grouping likely disabled anyway.
> 
> Thus with CONFIG_SLUB_TINY, don't create kmalloc-rcl caches and use the
> regular ones.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> ---
>  include/linux/slab.h |  9 +++++++--
>  mm/slab_common.c     | 10 ++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
> index 45efc6c553b8..ae2d19ec8467 100644
> --- a/include/linux/slab.h
> +++ b/include/linux/slab.h
> @@ -336,12 +336,17 @@ enum kmalloc_cache_type {
>  #endif
>  #ifndef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
>  	KMALLOC_CGROUP = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
> -#else
> -	KMALLOC_CGROUP,
>  #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
> +	KMALLOC_RECLAIM = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
> +#else
>  	KMALLOC_RECLAIM,
> +#endif
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
>  	KMALLOC_DMA,
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> +	KMALLOC_CGROUP,
>  #endif
>  	NR_KMALLOC_TYPES
>  };
> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
> index a8cb5de255fc..907d52963806 100644
> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> @@ -770,10 +770,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmalloc_size_roundup);
>  #define KMALLOC_CGROUP_NAME(sz)
>  #endif
>  
> +#ifndef CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
> +#define KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(sz)	.name[KMALLOC_RECLAIM] = "kmalloc-rcl-" #sz,
> +#else
> +#define KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(sz)
> +#endif
> +
>  #define INIT_KMALLOC_INFO(__size, __short_size)			\
>  {								\
>  	.name[KMALLOC_NORMAL]  = "kmalloc-" #__short_size,	\
> -	.name[KMALLOC_RECLAIM] = "kmalloc-rcl-" #__short_size,	\
> +	KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(__short_size)				\
>  	KMALLOC_CGROUP_NAME(__short_size)			\
>  	KMALLOC_DMA_NAME(__short_size)				\
>  	.size = __size,						\
> @@ -859,7 +865,7 @@ void __init setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table(void)
>  static void __init
>  new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, enum kmalloc_cache_type type, slab_flags_t flags)
>  {
> -	if (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM) {
> +	if ((KMALLOC_RECLAIM != KMALLOC_NORMAL) && (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM)) {

for consistency this can be:
	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLUB_TINY) && (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM)) {

But yeah, it's not a big deal.

>  		flags |= SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT;
>  	} else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM) && (type == KMALLOC_CGROUP)) {
>  		if (mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled()) {
> -- 
> 2.38.1
> 

For either case:

Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
Hyeonggon Yoo Nov. 24, 2022, 2:25 p.m. UTC | #6 
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 10:23:51PM +0900, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > @@ -859,7 +865,7 @@ void __init setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table(void)
> >  static void __init
> >  new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, enum kmalloc_cache_type type, slab_flags_t flags)
> >  {
> > -	if (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM) {
> > +	if ((KMALLOC_RECLAIM != KMALLOC_NORMAL) && (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM)) {
> 
> for consistency this can be:
> 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLUB_TINY) && (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM)) {
>

My finger slipped :)
I mean:
	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SLUB_TINY) && (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM)) {
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/include/linux/slab.h b/include/linux/slab.h
index 45efc6c553b8..3ce9474c90ab 100644
--- a/include/linux/slab.h
+++ b/include/linux/slab.h
@@ -339,7 +339,11 @@  enum kmalloc_cache_type {
 #else
 	KMALLOC_CGROUP,
 #endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
 	KMALLOC_RECLAIM,
+#else
+	KMALLOC_RECLAIM = KMALLOC_NORMAL,
+#endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
 	KMALLOC_DMA,
 #endif
diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
index a8cb5de255fc..907d52963806 100644
--- a/mm/slab_common.c
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c
@@ -770,10 +770,16 @@  EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmalloc_size_roundup);
 #define KMALLOC_CGROUP_NAME(sz)
 #endif
 
+#ifndef CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
+#define KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(sz)	.name[KMALLOC_RECLAIM] = "kmalloc-rcl-" #sz,
+#else
+#define KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(sz)
+#endif
+
 #define INIT_KMALLOC_INFO(__size, __short_size)			\
 {								\
 	.name[KMALLOC_NORMAL]  = "kmalloc-" #__short_size,	\
-	.name[KMALLOC_RECLAIM] = "kmalloc-rcl-" #__short_size,	\
+	KMALLOC_RCL_NAME(__short_size)				\
 	KMALLOC_CGROUP_NAME(__short_size)			\
 	KMALLOC_DMA_NAME(__short_size)				\
 	.size = __size,						\
@@ -859,7 +865,7 @@  void __init setup_kmalloc_cache_index_table(void)
 static void __init
 new_kmalloc_cache(int idx, enum kmalloc_cache_type type, slab_flags_t flags)
 {
-	if (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM) {
+	if ((KMALLOC_RECLAIM != KMALLOC_NORMAL) && (type == KMALLOC_RECLAIM)) {
 		flags |= SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT;
 	} else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM) && (type == KMALLOC_CGROUP)) {
 		if (mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled()) {