On Sun, Aug 04, 2024 at 07:39:52PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
[...]
> > > > > +unsafe impl Allocator for Vmalloc {
> > > > > + unsafe fn realloc(
> > > > > + ptr: Option<NonNull<u8>>,
> > > > > + layout: Layout,
> > > > > + flags: Flags,
> > > > > + ) -> Result<NonNull<[u8]>, AllocError> {
> > > > > + let realloc = ReallocFunc::vrealloc();
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > IIUC, vrealloc() calls __vmalloc_noprof() in allocation case, that is
> > > > calling __vmalloc_node_noprof() with align=1. In such a case, how would
> > > > vmalloc() guarantee the allocated memory is aligned to layout.align()?
> > >
> > > True, good catch. I thought of this a while ago and then forgot to fix it.
> >
> > Just for clarification, we're always PAGE_SIZE aligned (guaranteed by
> > __alloc_vmap_area()), which probably would always be sufficient. That's why I
> > didn't gave it too much attention in the first place and then forgot about it.
> >
> > However, we indeed do not honor layout.align() if it's larger than PAGE_SIZE.
>
> Another note on that:
>
> My plan for this series was to just fail allocation for alignment requests
> larger than PAGE_SIZE. And, if required, address larger alignments in a later
Yeah, this sounds reasonable.
> series, since this one is probably big enough already.
>
> However, for `Vmalloc` we could support it right away, since it's trivial. For
> `KVmalloc` though it requires a bit more effort.
>
Could you elaborate why it requires a bit more effort? Because
kvrealloc() and kvmalloc() in C don't have a way to specify alignment
requirement? If so, I think a solution to that would be just providing
the K-or-V switch in Rust code, i.e. just `Vmalloc` and `Kmalloc` to
implement `KVmalloc`, which I don't think is a bad idea.
Regards,
Boqun
> For consistancy it would probably be better to support alignments larger than
> PAGE_SIZE either for `Vmalloc` and `KVmalloc` or neither of those though.
>
> My personal tendency goes a bit more into the direction of picking consistancy.
>
> Any other opinions?
>
[...]
