[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zokm6M48WunoEohV@pollux.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 13:13:44 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: ojeda@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com, wedsonaf@...il.com,
boqun.feng@...il.com, gary@...yguo.net, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com,
a.hindborg@...sung.com, aliceryhl@...gle.com,
daniel.almeida@...labora.com, faith.ekstrand@...labora.com,
boris.brezillon@...labora.com, lina@...hilina.net,
mcanal@...lia.com, zhiw@...dia.com, acurrid@...dia.com,
cjia@...dia.com, jhubbard@...dia.com, airlied@...hat.com,
ajanulgu@...hat.com, lyude@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/20] rust: alloc: implement `Vmalloc` allocator
On Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 10:41:28AM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On 04.07.24 19:06, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > @@ -112,6 +118,55 @@ unsafe fn alloc_zeroed(&self, layout: Layout) -> *mut u8 {
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +unsafe impl Allocator for Vmalloc {
> > + unsafe fn realloc(
> > + &self,
> > + src: *mut u8,
> > + old_size: usize,
> > + layout: Layout,
> > + flags: Flags,
> > + ) -> Result<NonNull<[u8]>, AllocError> {
> > + let mut size = aligned_size(layout);
> > +
> > + let dst = if size == 0 {
> > + // SAFETY: `src` is guaranteed to be previously allocated with this `Allocator` or NULL.
> > + unsafe { bindings::vfree(src.cast()) };
> > + NonNull::dangling()
> > + } else if size <= old_size {
> > + size = old_size;
> > + NonNull::new(src).ok_or(AllocError)?
> > + } else {
> > + // SAFETY: `src` is guaranteed to point to valid memory with a size of at least
> > + // `old_size`, which was previously allocated with this `Allocator` or NULL.
> > + let dst = unsafe { bindings::__vmalloc_noprof(size as u64, flags.0) };
> > +
> > + // Validate that we actually allocated the requested memory.
> > + let dst = NonNull::new(dst.cast()).ok_or(AllocError)?;
> > +
> > + if !src.is_null() {
> > + // SAFETY: `src` is guaranteed to point to valid memory with a size of at least
> > + // `old_size`; `dst` is guaranteed to point to valid memory with a size of at least
> > + // `size`.
> > + unsafe {
> > + core::ptr::copy_nonoverlapping(
> > + src,
> > + dst.as_ptr(),
> > + core::cmp::min(old_size, size),
> > + )
> > + };
> > +
> > + // SAFETY: `src` is guaranteed to be previously allocated with this `Allocator` or
> > + // NULL.
> > + unsafe { bindings::vfree(src.cast()) }
> > + }
> > +
> > + dst
> > + };
>
> If we had not a single realloc, but shrink/grow/free/alloc, then we
> would not need these checks here, I personally would prefer that, what
> do you guys think?
Yeah, but look at `Kmalloc`, you'd have these checks in `Kmalloc`'s shrink/grow
functions instead, since `krealloc()` already behaves this way.
Personally, I don't see much value in `shrink` and `grow`. I think
implementations end up calling into some `realloc` with either `new < old` or
`new > old` anyway.
>
> ---
> Cheers,
> Benno
>
> > +
> > + Ok(NonNull::slice_from_raw_parts(dst, size))
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > #[global_allocator]
> > static ALLOCATOR: Kmalloc = Kmalloc;
> >
> > diff --git a/rust/kernel/alloc/allocator_test.rs b/rust/kernel/alloc/allocator_test.rs
> > index 3a0abe65491d..b2d7db492ba6 100644
> > --- a/rust/kernel/alloc/allocator_test.rs
> > +++ b/rust/kernel/alloc/allocator_test.rs
> > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
> > use core::ptr::NonNull;
> >
> > pub struct Kmalloc;
> > +pub type Vmalloc = Kmalloc;
> >
> > unsafe impl Allocator for Kmalloc {
> > unsafe fn realloc(
> > --
> > 2.45.2
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists