[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZHTuBdlhSI0mmQGE@moria.home.lan>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 14:25:09 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
mcgrof@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
x86@...nel.org, rppt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Type aware module allocator
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:58:37PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> 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.
Ok, I went back and read more thoroughly, I got this part wrong. The
actual interface is the mod_mem_type enum, not mod_alloc_params or
vmalloc_params.
So this was my main complaint, but this actually looks ok now.
It would be better to have those structs in a .c file, not the header
file - it looks like those are the public interface the way you have it.
> > The memory protection interface also needs to go, we've got a better
> > interface to model after (text_poke(), although that code needs work
> > too!). And the instruction fill features need a thorough justification
> > if they're to be included.
>
> I guess the first step to use text_poke() is to make it available on all
> archs? That doesn't seem easy to me.
We just need a helper that either calls text_poke() or does the page
permission dance in a single place.
If we do the same thing for other mod_mem_types, we could potentially
allow them to be shared on hugepages too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists