On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 01:36:25AM +0000, Song Liu wrote: > > > > 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. This sounds like a nice thread to use as this is why we are talking about that topic. > OTOH, I guess the outcome of that discussion should not change this set? If the above is done right then actually I think it would show similar considerations for a respective free for module_alloc_huge(). > If we have concern about module_alloc_huge(), maybe we can have bpf code > call vmalloc directly (until we have vmalloc_exec_)? You'd need to then still open code in a similar way the same things which we are trying to reach consensus on. > What do you think about this plan? I think we should strive to not be lazy and sloppy, and prevent growth of sloppy code. So long as we do that I think this is all reasoanble. Luis
