Message-ID: <Zirfyp_NiYCRQYvk@cassiopeiae>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 00:57:14 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>, Zhi Wang <zhiw@...dia.com>,
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Wedson Almeida Filho <walmeida@...rosoft.com>, ajanulgu@...hat.com,
	Andy Currid <acurrid@...dia.com>, Neo Jia <cjia@...dia.com>,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] Allocation APIs

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 08:52:16PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On 25.04.24 20:42, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 04:09:46PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> >> On 25.04.24 17:36, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >>> (adding folks from [1])
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 05:43:08PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/28/24 02:35, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
> >>>>> From: Wedson Almeida Filho <walmeida@...rosoft.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Revamp how we use the `alloc` crate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We currently have a fork of the crate with changes to `Vec`; other
> >>>>> changes have been upstreamed (to the Rust project). This series removes
> >>>>> the fork and exposes all the functionality as extension traits.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Additionally, it also introduces allocation flag parameters to all
> >>>>> functions that may result in allocations (e.g., `Box::new`, `Arc::new`,
> >>>>> `Vec::push`, etc.) without the `try_` prefix -- the names are available
> >>>>> because we build `alloc` with `no_global_oom_handling`.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lastly, the series also removes our reliance on the `allocator_api`
> >>>>> unstable feature.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Long term, we still want to make such functionality available in
> >>>>> upstream Rust, but this allows us to make progress now and reduces our
> >>>>> maintainance burden.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In summary:
> >>>>> 1. Removes `alloc` fork
> >>>>> 2. Removes use of `allocator_api` unstable feature
> >>>>> 3. Introduces flags (e.g., GFP_KERNEL, GFP_ATOMIC) when allocating
> >>>>
> >>>> With that series, how do we implement alternative allocators, such as
> >>>> (k)vmalloc or DMA coherent?
> >>>>
> >>>> For instance, I recently sketched up some firmware bindings we want to
> >>>> use in Nova providing
> >>>>
> >>>> fn copy<A: core::alloc::Allocator>(&self, alloc: A) -> Result<Vec<u8, A>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>>
> >>>> making use of Vec::try_with_capacity_in(). How would I implement
> >>>> something similar now?
> >>>
> >>> I want to follow up on this topic after also bringing it up in yesterday's
> >>> weekly Rust call.
> >>>
> >>> In the call a few ideas were discussed, e.g. whether we could just re-enable the
> >>> allocator_api feature and try getting it stabilized.
> >>>
> >>> With the introduction of alloc::Flags (gfp_t abstraction) allocator_api might
> >>> not be a viable choice anymore.
> >>
> >> Bringing in some more context from the meeting: Gary suggested we create
> >> a custom trait for allocators that can also handle allocation flags:
> >>
> >>       pub trait AllocatorWithFlags: Allocator {
> >>           type Flags;
> >>
> >>           fn allocate_with_flags(&self, layout: Layout, flags: Self::Flags) -> Result<NonNull<[u8]>, AllocError>;
> >>
> >>           /* ... */
> >>       }
> >>
> >>       impl AllocatorWithFlags for Global { /* ... */ }
> >>
> >>       impl<T, A> VecExt<T> for Vec<T, A> where A: AllocatorWithFlags {
> >>           /* ... */
> >>       }
> >>
> >> I think that this would work, but we would have to ensure that users are
> >> only allowed to call allocating functions if they are functions that we
> >> control. For example `Vec::try_reserve` [1] would still use the normal
> >> `Allocator` trait that doesn't support our flags.
> >> Gary noted that this could be solved by `klint` [2].
> > 
> > I agree, extending the Allocator trait should work.
> > 
> > Regarding allocating functions we don't control, isn't that the case already?
> > AFAICS, we're currently always falling back to GFP_KERNEL when calling
> > Vec::try_reserve().
> 
> Yes we're falling back to that, but
> 1. there are currently no calls to `try_reserve` in tree,
> 2. if you use eg a `vmalloc` allocator, then I don't know if it would be
>     fine to reallocate that pointer using `krealloc`. I assumed that that
>     would not be OK (hence my extra care with functions outside of our
>     control).

Well, this would indeed not be valid. However, a vmalloc allocater wouldn't
implement realloc() this way.

Or are you saying that Vec always uses the global allocator in that case? Why
would it do that?

> 
> > But yes, I also think it would be better to enforce being explicit.
> > 
> > Given that, is there any value extending the existing Allocator trait at all?
> 
> This is what I meant in the meeting by "do you really need the allocator
> trait?". What you lose is the ability to use `Vec` and `Box`, instead

Oh, indeed. I forgot about that when I wrote that. In that case I feel like it's
worth extending the existing allocator_api.

> you have to use your own wrapper types (see below). But what you gain is
> freedom to experiment. In the end we should still try to upstream our
> findings to Rust or at least share our knowledge, but doing that from
> the get-go is not ideal for productivity.
> 
> >> But we only need to extend the allocator API, if you want to use the std
> >> library types that allocate. If you would also be happy with a custom
> >> newtype wrapper, then we could also do that.
> > 
> > What do you mean with "custom newtype wrapper"?
> 
> You create a newtype struct ("newtype" means that it wraps an inner type
> and adds/removes/changes features from the inner type):
> 
>      pub struct BigVec<T>(Vec<T>);
> 
> And then you implement the common operations on it:
> 
>      impl<T> BigVec<T> {
>          pub fn push(&mut self, item: T) -> Result {
>              self.reserve(1)?;
> 
>              self.0.spare_capacity_mut()[0].write(item);
> 
>              // SAFETY: <omitted for brevity>
>              unsafe { self.0.set_len(self.0.len() + 1) };
>              Ok(())
>          }
> 
>          pub fn reserve(&mut self, additional: usize) -> Result {
>              /*
>               * implemented like `VecExt::reserve` from this patchset,
>               * except that it uses `vmalloc` instead of `krealloc`.
>               */
>          }
>      }
> 
> If we need several of these, we can also create a general API that
> makes it easier to create them and avoids the duplication.

Thanks for for explaining.

I'd probably tend to extending allocator_api then. Do you see any major
advantages / disadvantages doing one or the other?

> 
> >> I think that we probably want a more general solution (ie `Allocator`
> >> enriched with flags), but we would have to design that before you can
> >> use it.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/alloc/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.try_reserve
> >> [2]: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/klint
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I think it would work for (k)vmalloc, where we could pass the page flags through
> >>> const generics for instance.
> >>>
> >>> But I don't see how it could work with kmem_cache, where we can't just create a
> >>> new allocator instance when we want to change the page flags, but need to
> >>> support allocations with different page flags on the same allocator (same
> >>> kmem_cache) instance.
> >>
> >> I think that you can write the `kmem_cache` abstraction without using
> >> the allocator api. You just give the function that allocates a `flags`
> >> argument like in C.
> > 
> > Guess you mean letting the kmem_cache implementation construct the corresponding
> > container? Something like:
> > 
> > KmemCache<T>::alloc_box(flags: alloc::Flags) -> Box<T>
> > 
> > I think that'd make a lot of sense, since the size of an allocation is fixed
> > anyways.
> 
> Yes, but you would probably need a newtype return type, since you need
> to control how it is being freed. Also in the example above there is no
> `kmem_cache` object that stores the state.

Sure, the above was just meant to see whether I understood you correctly.

> 
> I think that the API would look more like this:
> 
>      impl<T> KMemCache<T> {
>          pub fn alloc(&self, value: T, flags: Flags) -> Result<KMemObj<'_, T>>;
>      }
> 
> Here are a couple of interesting elements of this API:
> - I don't know if `kmem_cache` uses the same flags as the alloc module,
>    if not you will need a custom `Flags` type.
> - I assume that an object allocated by a `kmem_cache` is only valid
>    while the cache still exists (ie if you drop the cache, all allocated
>    objects are also invalidated). That is why the return type contains a
>    lifetime (`'_` refers to the elided lifetime on the `&self` parameter.
>    It means that the `KMemObj` is only valid while the `KMemCache` is
>    also valid).
> - The return type is its own kind of smart pointer that allows you to
>    modify the inner value like `Box`, but it takes care of all the
>    `kmem_cache` specifics (eg ensuring that the associated cache is still
>    valid, freeing the object etc).r
> 
> Since I assumed several things, in the end the API might look different,
> but I think that this could be a more fruitful starting point.

Thanks for the hints - your assumptions are correct. The page flags are the same.

> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Benno
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists