On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:48:51PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > 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 architectures previously exported constants that were used by module_alloc(), why not stick with that? > AFAICT, we don't have a global text_poke() API yet. I can take a look > into it (if it makes sense). Great > Yeah, that's part of the goal to extend the scope from executable to all > types. Yeah it took me a bit to wrap my head around how this all makes sense - it started out as just a better module_alloc(), then there was lots of talk about hugepages. I like it more now, looking forward to see how it fits together with Mike's work :)
