From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B29C433F5 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 21:31:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1345375AbiDNVeC (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:34:02 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52064 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229943AbiDNVeA (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:34:00 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88C311F63B; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B98DB82B9B; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 21:31:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC2A8C385A5; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 21:31:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1649971892; bh=h2CDvJ935gRrph03sTEfqDjtYnF3c4eTNU0nFlpfIDo=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=Up+6imjj/eMa46S04EnplwZ72nsvjrSC5YV3qyxm9pnrLsp0mdQ9TwX76ocqJ9SCY RP41SFqMTmrf7d7o/c7ShVRxoKW3EC9uUAfSkKoWpBQfRHXPPbxPkrQPltJGvM9bR4 wiaW63XvgREN8QkBXQm0zq/s1P3AzVEpNgGynS1p5oae98C+ORn7KaXpDKfGt9kxVY k5jBjt+lwHx9FoUd/bZUZzXlR3CQYV3Jky0J9IOyhRmg9Zi0046/J7ck5QJ+F9xS2t JUJJVirrbVrZLo0SNKw3xtfcr0L27RHJBF39WbXPgHKE8DHvTWGKzhYI7EkRcP5WJM eagGITeKrI4qQ== Received: by mail-yw1-f173.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-2ebf4b91212so68378327b3.8; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:31:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531AmBzhdjlFVgDK6Fq5mN7BxnGgOHZdy4Bye61l9RIye5f75eL2 VIRnHp9QvZy+rRGZGZTSdZImsaWiH+kUhQNEaFo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwoOdn0th0XbdegVRBdNkqRR9sYSJqbu0HlnrvstgzzLo278bhR6okJlsLL7beUIEU1zwYtNny56Ms3lI7RT/4= X-Received: by 2002:a81:5087:0:b0:2ef:33c1:fccd with SMTP id e129-20020a815087000000b002ef33c1fccdmr3664971ywb.73.1649971891018; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:31:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220414195914.1648345-1-song@kernel.org> <20220414195914.1648345-4-song@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: From: Song Liu Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:31:18 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf RESEND 3/4] module: introduce module_alloc_huge To: Luis Chamberlain Cc: Linus Torvalds , bpf , Linux-MM , open list , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Kernel Team , Andrew Morton , "Edgecombe, Rick P" , Christoph Hellwig , imbrenda@linux.ibm.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 2:11 PM Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 02:03:17PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > > Hi Luis, > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 1:34 PM Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:59:13PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > > > > Introduce module_alloc_huge, which allocates huge page backed memory in > > > > module memory space. The primary user of this memory is bpf_prog_pack > > > > (multiple BPF programs sharing a huge page). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Song Liu > > > > > > See modules-next [0], as modules.c has been chopped up as of late. > > > So if you want this to go throug modules this will need to rebased > > > on that tree. fortunately the amount of code in question does not > > > seem like much. > > > > > > [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=modules-next > > > > We are hoping to ship this with to 5.18, as the set addresses some issue with > > huge page backed vmalloc. I guess we cannot ship it via modules-next branch. > > > > Huh, you intend this to go in as a fix for v5.18 (already released) once > properly reviewed? This seems quite large... for a fix. > > > How about we ship module_alloc_huge() to 5.18 in module.c for now, and once > > we update modules-next branch, I will send another patch to clean it up? > > I rather set the expectations right about getting such a large fix in > for v5.18. I haven't even sat down to review all the changes in light of > this, but a cursorary glance seems to me it's rather "large" for a fix. Yes, I agree this is a little too big for a fix. I guess we can discuss whether some of the set need to wait until 5.19. Thanks, Song