[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aJ756q-wWJV37fMm@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:12:10 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>, pratyush@...nel.org,
jasonmiu@...gle.com, graf@...zon.com, changyuanl@...gle.com,
dmatlack@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com, corbet@....net,
rdunlap@...radead.org, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com,
kanie@...ux.alibaba.com, ojeda@...nel.org, aliceryhl@...gle.com,
masahiroy@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org,
yoann.congal@...le.fr, mmaurer@...gle.com, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
chenridong@...wei.com, axboe@...nel.dk, mark.rutland@....com,
jannh@...gle.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...hat.com,
joel.granados@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
anna.schumaker@...cle.com, song@...nel.org, zhangguopeng@...inos.cn,
linux@...ssschuh.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, rafael@...nel.org, dakr@...nel.org,
bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org, cw00.choi@...sung.com,
myungjoo.ham@...sung.com, yesanishhere@...il.com,
Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com,
aleksander.lobakin@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, leon@...nel.org, lukas@...ner.de,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, wagi@...nel.org, djeffery@...hat.com,
stuart.w.hayes@...il.com, ptyadav@...zon.de, lennart@...ttering.net,
brauner@...nel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, saeedm@...dia.com,
ajayachandra@...dia.com, parav@...dia.com, leonro@...dia.com,
witu@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/30] kho: add interfaces to unpreserve folios and
physical memory ranges
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:22:33AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 01:44:13AM +0000, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> > +int kho_unpreserve_phys(phys_addr_t phys, size_t size)
> > +{
>
> Why are we adding phys apis? Didn't we talk about this before and
> agree not to expose these?
>
> The places using it are goofy:
>
> +static int luo_fdt_setup(void)
> +{
> + fdt_out = (void *)__get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO,
> + get_order(LUO_FDT_SIZE));
>
> + ret = kho_preserve_phys(__pa(fdt_out), LUO_FDT_SIZE);
>
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(kho_unpreserve_phys(__pa(fdt_out), LUO_FDT_SIZE));
>
> It literally allocated a page and then for some reason switches to
> phys with an open coded __pa??
>
> This is ugly, if you want a helper to match __get_free_pages() then
> make one that works on void * directly. You can get the order of the
> void * directly from the struct page IIRC when using GFP_COMP.
>
> Which is perhaps another comment, if this __get_free_pages() is going
> to be a common pattern (and I guess it will be) then the API should be
> streamlined alot more:
>
> void *kho_alloc_preserved_memory(gfp, size);
> void kho_free_preserved_memory(void *);
This looks backwards to me. KHO should not deal with memory allocation,
it's responsibility to preserve/restore memory objects it supports.
For __get_free_pages() the natural KHO API is kho_(un)preserve_pages().
With struct page/mesdesc we always have page_to_<specialized object> from
one side and page_to_pfn from the other side.
Then folio and phys/virt APIS just become a thin wrappers around the _page
APIs. And down the road we can add slab and maybe vmalloc.
Once folio won't overlap struct page, we'll have a hard time with only
kho_preserve_folio() for memory that's not actually folio (i.e. anon and
page cache)
> Which can wrapper the get_free_pages and the preserve logic and gives
> a nice path to possibly someday supporting non-PAGE_SIZE allocations.
>
> Jason
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists