> On Jul 7, 2022, at 5:53 PM, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 11:52:58PM +0000, Song Liu wrote: >>> On Jul 7, 2022, at 3:59 PM, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 03:35:41PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: >>>> This set is the second half of v4 [1]. >>>> >>>> Changes v5 => v6: >>>> 1. Rebase and extend CC list. >>> >>> Why post a new iteration so soon without completing the discussion we >>> had? It seems like we were at least going somewhere. If it's just >>> to include mm as I requested, sure, that's fine, but this does not >>> provide context as to what we last were talking about. >> >> Sorry for sending v6 too soon. The primary reason was to extend the CC >> list and add it back to patchwork (v5 somehow got archived). >> >> Also, I think vmalloc_exec_ work would be a separate project, while this >> set is the followup work of bpf_prog_pack. Does this make sense? >> >> Btw, vmalloc_exec_ work could be a good topic for LPC. It will be much >> more efficient to discuss this in person. > > What we need is input from mm / arch folks. What is not done here is > what that stuff we're talking about is and so mm folks can't guess. My > preference is to address that. > > I don't think in person discussion is needed if the only folks > discussing this topic so far is just you and me. How about we start a thread with mm / arch folks for the vmalloc_exec_* topic? I will summarize previous discussions and include pointers to these discussions. If necessary, we can continue the discussion at LPC. OTOH, I guess the outcome of that discussion should not change this set? If we have concern about module_alloc_huge(), maybe we can have bpf code call vmalloc directly (until we have vmalloc_exec_)? What do you think about this plan? Thanks, Song
