On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 3:45 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:58:37PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:04 AM Kent Overstreet > > <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I think this needs to back to the drawing board and we need something > > > simpler just targeted at executable memory; architecture specific > > > options should definitely _not_ be part of the exposed interface. > > > > I don't think we are exposing architecture specific options to users. > > Some layer need to handle arch specifics. If the new allocator is > > built on top of module_alloc, module_alloc is handling that. If the new > > allocator is to replace module_alloc, it needs to handle arch specifics. > > I'm for creating a new allocator that will replace module_alloc(). This > will give us a clean abstraction that modules and all the rest will use and > it will make easier to plug binpack or another allocator instead of > vmalloc. > > Another point is with a new allocator we won't have weird dependencies on > CONFIG_MODULE in e.g. bpf and kprobes. > > I'll have something ready to post as an RFC in a few days. I guess this RFC is similar to unmapped_alloc()? If it replaces vmalloc, we can probably trim this set down a bit (remove mod_alloc_params and vmalloc_params, etc.). Thanks, Song
