On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:47:42AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:29:45AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > Your allocator implicitly relies on vmalloc because of module_alloc ;-) > > > > What I was thinking is that we can replace module_alloc() calls in your > > allocator with something based on my unmapped_alloc(). If we make the part > > that refills the cache also take care of creating the mapping in the > > module address space, that should cover everything. > > Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking :) > > Liam was also just mentioning on IRC vmalloc lock contention came up > again at LSF, and that's historically always been an isuse - going with > your patchset for the backend nicely avoids that. Unfortunately not because we still need to map the pages in the modules area which is essentially a subset of vmalloc address space. > If I have time (hah! big if :) I'll see if I can cook up a patchset that > combines our two approaches over the weekend. Now there is also an interest about unmapped allocations from KVM folks, so I might continue pursuing unmapped allocator, probably just without a new GFP flag and hooks into page allocator. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
