[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230519161414.GF4967@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 19:14:14 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mm: intorduce __GFP_UNMAPPED and unmapped_alloc()
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:47:42AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:29:45AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > Your allocator implicitly relies on vmalloc because of module_alloc ;-)
> >
> > What I was thinking is that we can replace module_alloc() calls in your
> > allocator with something based on my unmapped_alloc(). If we make the part
> > that refills the cache also take care of creating the mapping in the
> > module address space, that should cover everything.
>
> Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking :)
>
> Liam was also just mentioning on IRC vmalloc lock contention came up
> again at LSF, and that's historically always been an isuse - going with
> your patchset for the backend nicely avoids that.
Unfortunately not because we still need to map the pages in the modules
area which is essentially a subset of vmalloc address space.
> If I have time (hah! big if :) I'll see if I can cook up a patchset that
> combines our two approaches over the weekend.
Now there is also an interest about unmapped allocations from KVM folks, so
I might continue pursuing unmapped allocator, probably just without a new
GFP flag and hooks into page allocator.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists