On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:54 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 09:13:27AM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 8:37 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'm looking at execmem_types more as definition of the consumers, maybe I > > > > > should have named the enum execmem_consumer at the first place. > > > > > > > > I think looking at execmem_type from consumers' point of view adds > > > > unnecessary complexity. IIUC, for most (if not all) archs, ftrace, kprobe, > > > > and bpf (and maybe also module text) all have the same requirements. > > > > Did I miss something? > > > > > > It's enough to have one architecture with different constrains for kprobes > > > and bpf to warrant a type for each. > > > > AFAICT, some of these constraints can be changed without too much work. > > But why? > I honestly don't understand what are you trying to optimize here. A few > lines of initialization in execmem_info? IIUC, having separate EXECMEM_BPF and EXECMEM_KPROBE makes it harder for bpf and kprobe to share the same ROX page. In many use cases, a 2MiB page (assuming x86_64) is enough for all BPF, kprobe, ftrace, and module text. It is not efficient if we have to allocate separate pages for each of these use cases. If this is not a problem, the current approach works. Thanks, Song
