[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230529104530.GL4967@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 13:45:30 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
mcgrof@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Type aware module allocator
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:58:37PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:04 AM Kent Overstreet
> <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > I think this needs to back to the drawing board and we need something
> > simpler just targeted at executable memory; architecture specific
> > options should definitely _not_ be part of the exposed interface.
>
> I don't think we are exposing architecture specific options to users.
> Some layer need to handle arch specifics. If the new allocator is
> built on top of module_alloc, module_alloc is handling that. If the new
> allocator is to replace module_alloc, it needs to handle arch specifics.
I'm for creating a new allocator that will replace module_alloc(). This
will give us a clean abstraction that modules and all the rest will use and
it will make easier to plug binpack or another allocator instead of
vmalloc.
Another point is with a new allocator we won't have weird dependencies on
CONFIG_MODULE in e.g. bpf and kprobes.
I'll have something ready to post as an RFC in a few days.
> Thanks,
> Song
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists