On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 02:31:18PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 2:11 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 02:03:17PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > > > Hi Luis, > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 1:34 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:59:13PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > > > > > Introduce module_alloc_huge, which allocates huge page backed memory in > > > > > module memory space. The primary user of this memory is bpf_prog_pack > > > > > (multiple BPF programs sharing a huge page). > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > See modules-next [0], as modules.c has been chopped up as of late. > > > > So if you want this to go throug modules this will need to rebased > > > > on that tree. fortunately the amount of code in question does not > > > > seem like much. > > > > > > > > [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=modules-next > > > > > > We are hoping to ship this with to 5.18, as the set addresses some issue with > > > huge page backed vmalloc. I guess we cannot ship it via modules-next branch. > > > > > > > Huh, you intend this to go in as a fix for v5.18 (already released) once > > properly reviewed? This seems quite large... for a fix. > > > > > How about we ship module_alloc_huge() to 5.18 in module.c for now, and once > > > we update modules-next branch, I will send another patch to clean it up? > > > > I rather set the expectations right about getting such a large fix in > > for v5.18. I haven't even sat down to review all the changes in light of > > this, but a cursorary glance seems to me it's rather "large" for a fix. > > Yes, I agree this is a little too big for a fix. I guess we can discuss whether > some of the set need to wait until 5.19. Doing a more thorough review of this now, and when the other changes landed, it seems this is *large follow up fix* for an optimization for when tons of JIT eBPF programs are used. It's so large I can't be confident this also doesn't go in with other holes or issues, or that the other stuff merged already also has some other issues. So I can't see anything screaming for why this needs to go in for v5.18 other than it'd be nice. So my preference is for this to go through v5.19 as I see no rush. Luis
