On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:58:37PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > > 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. > > Ok, I went back and read more thoroughly, I got this part wrong. The > actual interface is the mod_mem_type enum, not mod_alloc_params or > vmalloc_params. > > So this was my main complaint, but this actually looks ok now. > > It would be better to have those structs in a .c file, not the header > file - it looks like those are the public interface the way you have it. Thanks for this suggestion. It makes a lot of sense. But I am not quite sure how we can avoid putting it in the header yet. I will take a closer look. OTOH, if we plan to use Mike's new allocator to replace vmalloc, we probably don't need this part. > > > > The memory protection interface also needs to go, we've got a better > > > interface to model after (text_poke(), although that code needs work > > > too!). And the instruction fill features need a thorough justification > > > if they're to be included. > > > > I guess the first step to use text_poke() is to make it available on all > > archs? That doesn't seem easy to me. > > We just need a helper that either calls text_poke() or does the page > permission dance in a single place. AFAICT, we don't have a global text_poke() API yet. I can take a look into it (if it makes sense). > > If we do the same thing for other mod_mem_types, we could potentially > allow them to be shared on hugepages too. Yeah, that's part of the goal to extend the scope from executable to all types. Thanks, Song
